Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1873-01-18
Proceedings of the Senate YES
terday-MOrtOn on the Elee-
tOral College.
The Existing Irregularities in the
Electoral Returns from Louis
lana and Arkansas.
Corrupt Returns Calculated to
Endanger the Peace and Har-
mOny Of the Country.
CONGRESSIONAL PROcEEDINGs.
WASHINCTON, January i
IN THE SENATE.

Senator SchurZ called up the Vienna
Exposition bill.
Senator Carpenter Withdrew his
amendment appropriating three hun
dred thousand dollars to complete the
Washington Monument, as ii was
doubtful whether the monument could
ever be completed, owing to the soft
ness of the foundations and grounds.
The bill was then passed-yeas 30, nays
Is.
On motion of Senator Frelinghuysen
a bill was passed repeating the act for
the relief Of certain Indians in the
| Sioux superintendency.
Senator Morton called up his resOlu-
ton instructing Commissioners of Elec-
tiOns to inquire into the defects of the
present electoral system, and the best
means of remedying them. He spoke
at length upon it. He reviewed the
constitutional position of the States in
the matter of choosing Electors for
President and Vice-President, mat
ter entirely beyond the Jurisdiction Of
the National Government, and entirely
without remedy or redress on its part.
| Whatever disorders, Irregularities or
failures may occur in the appointment
| of Electors in any State, no provision is
anywhere made for contestlng the elec-
| ton of Electors, and whatever returns
shall be made up, although purchased,
in whole or in part, by fraud or violence,
must stand and the vote be counted
upon them if found in time. There is
| imminent danger Of a revolution to the
nation wherever the result OF Presi-
Dental election is to be determined by
| the vote Of State in which the choice
of Electors has been irregular, or is al
| legged to have been carried by fraud or
violence. There ought to be such ma
chinery of government provided that it
would seem impossible that any man
/ should ever reach the Presidential chair
who was not legitimately chosen thereto.
| He recapitulated the transactions with
! reference to the electoral vote in Wis
consin in 1857, when the Electors Of
that State, having been prevented by
snow-storm from assembling on the day
provided by law, and nevertheless sent
up the vote Of the State to be counted,
and though objections were made on
constitutional grounds, Senator Mason,
then President of the Senate, decided
that the two Houses had no jurisdiction
over counting the votes, but were met
| together simply as witnesses of the accu-
racy of the count and Of its result.
| The vote of Wisconsin was counted,
and the decision of Mason was not af
terward called in question, clearly
showing that the trainers of the consti
| tuition did not contemplate that the
President of the Senate, in opening and
counting the vote for President and
Vice President, should exercise his dis
cretionary or judicial powers in deter
mining between the votes of the two
sets of electors, or upon the sufficiency
or validity of the record of the votes of
the electors in any State, but that he
should perform merely ministerial act,
Of which the two Houses were to be wit
nesses. These high powers may devOlve
upon him eU HeceSsitdte rel, and what
ever decision he may make between the
two sets of electors, or upon the sutfi-
cheney or upon the validity of the record
of the votes, whether on the evidence of
| the right Of the electors to cast their
votes, whether they have been cast in
the manner prescribed by the constitu-
ton, his decision is final. There are
said to be two sets of electoral votes at
this time in the hands of the Vice
President from the State of Arkansas.
and two from the State OF Louisiana,
! and which ever of these two sets he de-
/ cides is the proper electoral record and
| brings forward, opens and causes to be
counted, must be so received, and
from his action there is no
appeal. The action Of the
two Houses in 1921, in regard to count
/ ing the vote of Missouri, is DO exception
| to this view of the power Of the Presi
dent Of the Senate, for the question
| in that case was not as to any irregulari-
/ ty in regard to the electoral vote in Mis-
souri, but whether Missouri was, at that
time, State in the Union, and entitled
! TO participate in the Presidential cleo
/ ton at all, which was also the question
| in the election of 1917 in regard to In
| diana, and in 1869 in regard to Georgia.
The President of the Senate may indeed
| be impeached for high crime and misde-
meanors, should he grossly violate his
duty. and thus fraudulently count or re-
| iect electoral votes, but that would not
amend the record which had been made
under the wrong, nor help the Presiden-
tial candidate who may have been
cheated out of office; neither would it
protect the nation from disorder and
civil war. If it should happen, upon the
recurrence of any of the cases cOnsid-
cred, that the decision of the President
of the Senate should determine the re-
suit. and give the Presidency to the
candidate who would otherwise have
been defeated, or throw the election
into the House of Representatives,
whose candidate had been rejected by
the people, and who should be elected
bya vote of the States, all can understand
the imminent peril in which the nation
would be placed by the twenty-second
Joint rule of the two Houses adopted
in 1855, in the speakers judgment the
most dangerous contrivance to the
peace of the nation ever invented by
Congress. 1t is provided that whenever
an electoral vote is objected to, the Sem
ate shall return to its chamber and each
House shall separately consider the OBJ
lection, and the vote shall not be counted
unless the two Houses concur to that
effect; if the two Houses disagree
the vote of the State is lost. This
may result in a tie or in the.eleetion of
candidate who would otherwise be de-
feated, or in preventing either
Of the candidates from having q ma
jority Of all the votes, and thus throw
ing the election into the House of Rep
resentatlves, each House to decide the
question without debate, in a summary
manner, without investigation and
WlIDOui htIc is u pow
erful temptation for the House of Repre-
sentatives, by non-concuuence, TO
throw the election into its own body,
and thus perhaps secure the election of
a candidate who may have been over
whelmingly beaten at the polls. The
two Houses may be under the control of
different parties, as in 1857,
led by partisan ambition, exaspera-
ted and thirsting for power, who are
thus enabled by mere nOn-concurrence
TO defeat an election by the people and
to seize the administration of the Gov
ernment into the hands of their party.
He did not believe that the constitution
conferred the power upon Congress to
make it the right of the people of State
to participate in Presidential election
and to depend upon the contingency of
agreement OF the two Houses on the
settlement of objection. The rule is an
invitation to partisans to make cap
tious and factiOus objections. 1t makes
the concurrent action of the two Houses
necessary where it should not be; and
tosum up its perilous absurdity, its mon
strous illogic, its dangerous unconstitu-
tionality, it places it in the power of a
defeated party, which may happen to
have q majority in either House, to de-
feat an election by the people, and to
take the chances ofanarchy of victory
by throwing the election into the House
OF Representatives. But this extraOr-
binary provision, by which either House
is empowered to reject the vote of
State in the election of President, is
created by joint rule of the two Houses.
The constitution provides that each
House may determine the rules Of
its own proceedings that is made
Of conducting its business and doing
these :things which by the constitution