New-York tribune., 1876-12-19
CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENCY.

CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENCY.
WHY THE CASTING OUT OF ELECTORAL VOTES WOULD
nor SETTLE THE QUESTIoN-A DECISION NOT
NECESSARILY REFERRED TO THE HOUSE.
lFRoM REGULAR CORRESPONDENT OF THE IkiBUNE'l
WASHINGTON. Dec 49, Much of the discussion
on the Presidential ENHANCEMENT in and out of Con-
eress has proceeded upon the assumption that If the
Senate would concede the rightfuness OF the CLAIM
of the House to reject the vote OF any state, the
whole question would be settled at once. This is an
erroneous idea Behind the disputed point as to the
power joint separate OF the two Houses over the
counting of the vote there is another of equal i'm
portance and equally involved in doubt. 1t is this:
In case the vote of one or more States be not
eounted. does the election 60 to the House of Rep
resentatives, or is the candidate having ma
ority of the remaining votes eectedi There arc no
precedents throwing light upon this point, and the
language of the Constitution, although afordlhg
more warrant for the latter conclusion than the
former is open TO a double construction 1t IL evil
dent that in the present condition of party feeling
If the result of the election should hang upon the
decision of this question each party would insist on
the construction which would best subserve its own
interests The Democrats, desiring above all things
to throw the election into the House, would MAINTAIN
that No one could be President without receiving a
majority of the total electoral vote, and that conse
ouently there had been no election by the people.
On the other hand, the Republicans, quoting the
language of the Constitution. which says that a
majority of all the electors appointed" snail oe
necessary TO a choice would hold that the reJectloh
Of the electoral votes of any State would imply that
the electors giving them were trandulehtiy or uu-
lawfully appointed. and were, therefore, III enect
not appointed, and that consequently the cahuiua'e
having majority of all the votes accepted and
Il fho having
further to do after the conclusion OF the count
The effect OF such difference Of opinion would
be to place the question just where it is now' IL
the Republicans agree with the Democrats that each
House has right TO reject the vote OF state. the
House would of course throw out South Carolina,
Florida and Louimana-1S electoral votes IN all.
But this is a game that the Senate would be pretty
sure 10 take hand in. 1t would reject MISSISSIPPI
and Alabama with their 1S votes linen, counting
the whole OREGON vote for Hayes he would have l67
votes. and TiIden 1865. The Republicans would hold
HAYES TO be duly elected, but the Democrats would
insist that il was for an election Dy the HOUSE.
and would proceed TO elect Tilden Thus by another
road the country would be brought 10 the
brink of the same precipice OF anarchy
TO which it is in danger OF Deihg leu
BY the failure of the two Houses to agree upon the
powers in the counting of the electoral votes'
yielding to the House on the point now at issue, un
less at the same time the right of the House 70 elect
the President, whatever might be the result OF the
rejection Of votes, should be also conceded. IL
Is PLAIN that no construction of rules laws OF Con-
stitution viii be accepted by the Democrats which
does not inevitably work out the election OF 1den'
Republicans, it would therefore appear. had better
hold the ground they now occupy and refuse to
recognize the right Of the House to disfranchise
State. Il will accomplish nothing toward a peace
able settlement of the difficulty for them to recede
from il.
In the search for precedents on both sides no In
stance has been found where the House has exer-
esed the power Of rejecting the vote of State when
the Senate has denied its possession of that power
Under the Twenty-second Joint Rule such power
exercised. but solely because the Senate in ad-
vance assented 10 its exercise. The more the ques-