Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1876-12-29
Counting the Electoral Vote.

Correspondence Of the Aep lofk Ir11une.
WASHINGTON, Dec. 20-The document in rela-
ton to the practice of Congress in counting the
electoral vote, submitted TO the Senate about q
week ago by Mr. Bayard, has just been printed.
1t was prepared by J. H.Wheeer for the purpose
of bringing out certain precedents supposed to
sustain tte present position Of the democrats
which were not fully given in the similar compil-
alton made by Major Mcdonald, the Secretary
of the Senate, last session; and as it gives the &C.
ton of the House well as of the Senate IN all
the counts Of the Presidential votes, it is valua'
bic contribution to the increasing literature of the
subject. 1t does not, however, afford any impor-
tant aid to the claim of the democrats, that the
House alone can reject the vote of State.
On the first question in dispute, as to the place
where the votes should be counted, it fully war
rants the Senate in insisting, if it thinks proper
that the House of Representatives shall come to
It's chamber. The count Of the first five cleo
tons was made in the Senate, and after the
fourth election, when the two houses failed to
agree upon the place and manner Of opening the
returns, the Senate informed the House that it
was ready to meet them in the Senate chamber
and the Representatives marched over at the ap-
pointed hour. Since 1909 the ceremony hes al
ways taken place in the Representatives hall, but
this custom began at a time when the number Of
members of Congress had increased so largely
that the old Senate chamber became too small 10
conveniently hold them.
The next, and all-inportant question, of who is
empowered to make the count, was not raised I'M
til many years after the adoption Of the Constitu-
/. L l..
Washington President were opened, the President
of the Senate counted the votes himself, with
the appreciation of everybody.
The convention that framed the Constitution, in
fact virtually instructed him to do so, for it passed
just before it dissolved q resolution stating that
the Senate should proceed to choose President
for the sole purpose of counting the electoral
votes. If anybody was competent at the time to
give true Interpretation of the Constitution, it
would seem to he the men who had just finished
the work of creating the instrument.
AT the second count the Vice President presd-
ing over the Senate opened. read, and delivered
TO iellers the certificates, and the tellers "examn
en- and ascertained the votes" but then, as in all
subsequent counts, the function Of the tellers was
merely the clerical one OF tabulating the votes and
adding them up. In short they were the clerks Of
the presiding officer. The two houses never as
serted any power over the count until 1921, when
the question raised as to the right of Missou-
ri to VOTE and lint resolution was adopted d.
recing the President of the Senate to state the
result as it would stand with and without the vote
of that State, which, 1t appened, made no differ
epce in the result. Here it w i'll be observed that
Congress hesated to claim the right to reject the
return of State even although there was q donbt
to whether Missouri was in the Union. After
the thirteenth Presidential election the question
of rejecting the vote of disqualified elector in
New Hampshire came up, and, although q Senate
committee reported that such question ought to
be settled by permanent provision on the subject,
no action was taken by either house and the vote
was counted. In 1857 the Electoral College of
Wisconsin met one day later than the law required
and the vote was objected to by Mr.. Orr, who
maintained that the Constitution conferred upon
the Two houses the power to determine the vaidi-
~ Of a vote" But Mr.. Orr's resolution was laid |
upon the table, aud the doctrine Of its mover was
thus refused Endorsement. There was no further |
questioning of until after the adoption of
the Twenty second Joint Rule, which in effect as
serted very broadly the power of Congress to re- |
ject votes at its pleasure and deputed the exercise
Of that power to either house. acting separately.
Under this rule, however, which had no warrant
in the Constitution or in precedent, and which was
a war measure to prevent the States in rebellion |
from taking part 10 the election of President,
no votes were rejected except in cases where there
were two conflicting State Governments sending |
in rival sets of returns. In 1869 the vote of Geor
gia was objected to. The House resolved not to |
count il. and the Senate TO count it. When the |
two houses assembled after voting on this question
the President of the Senate ordered Georgiss
vote to be counted, aud it was done, amid grea, |
confusion and an attempt on the part of Gen. |
Butler to have the Senators driven out of the hall
as interlopers. The action of the President was
based on a concurrent resolution previously |
adopted. declaring that Georgia should be count
ed II her vote made change 10 the result. OBJ |
jections were made in 1873 to the votes OF Mi.sis
sippi and Texas on the ground of nformality, and
to that of Georgia because cast for dead man, |
but they were both counted. Arkansas and Lou |
isisna were thrown out by the action of the Sen.
ate on account of the dispute in both States be-
tween rival Governments.
AT no time, it will be observed, in the whole |
history of President Il elections, was return re-
jected, or even objected on the ground of fraud
at the election or in the action of State returning
boards II is an entirely new theory that Congress
has the right 10 90 behind the certified returns of
Slate TO look Into the manner in which the cleo
ton was held or The votes canvassed The annals
of Congress furnish no precedent whatever to