The New York herald., 1876-12-30
Does the Vice President Count tho
VOtey

4 SeuatOr MOItOu lor tio htuheA IL
which he framed his bill for the electoral
count at the last session, as we'll as the
ability and fulness of knowledge with which
he explained and justified the provisions OF
his bill, show that ne has closely and thor
oughly studied what the statesmen who pre-
ceded him thought and did in the matter.
But we doubt if others are as well informed
rs Mr.. Morton, and for their benefit and for
the information of the public, we have hunted
up what has been said on this question in
previous Congresses.
| When the electoral vote was counted in
1917 the vote of Indiana was objected to.
| On this occasion the records show that ''the
seals of the votes were broken by the Presi-
dent of the Senate, and by him handed to
the tellers, by whom they were read aloud
and recorded on the journals of the Senate
and of the House Of Representatives by the
Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the
House respectively" The votes Of all the
States having been read. with the exception
| Of those Of the State Of Indiana, the two
houses separated to deliberate on this ques-
1 ton. 1t was not pretended by the Vice
l
the power to decide whether or not Indianas
vote should be received.
January 81, 1909, Messrs. Varnum, Sea-
ver Cook, Elsley Barker, Cults and Green
presented petitions from various towns in
the State of Massachusetts,, demonstrating
against the mode in which the late election
| OF electors was conducted in that State. 1t
] hot ha 1aro of
do carry to tie Senate the several memorials
above mentioned, and desire their concur
renee in the aforesaid resolution" Nothing
further was done in this matter; but again
no one set up a claim that the Vice Presi-
dent had power to interfere or decide such
questions
| In 1921, when the vote Of Missouri was
announced in joint convention, it was OBJ
jected to by Mr.. Livermore, of New Hamp-
shire, and, on motion, the Senate retired.
Mr.. Floyd, of Virginia, thereupon moved that
the vote Of Missouri ought to be received,
and on this debate arose in the House. ''Mr.
Archer, of Maryland, maintained that the
| question ought to be decided in
joint convention and not by the
! separate houses. He said he could
not agree that this House had a right to de-
termine whether any vote should be re-
ceived or rejected. What are the words Of
the constitution p The President of the
| Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate
and House Of Representatives,, open all the
certificates, and the vote shall then be
counted. Does 1t not follow asked Mr.
| Arcbar shat th a vofao IN cf ba c0uptod in,
the presence Of the two houses? For what
purpose do they assemble together unless it
be to determine on the legality of the votes
II not for this purpose the joint meeting is
for form md show and nothing else" Mr..
Archer. Of Maryland, said:-"He was a
little surprised ut one ground which had
been ken on this occasion, that the House
return. He had always thought that
wherever was lodged the power to receive
return there also was the power to pass a
judgment on the validity Of that return"
1t will be seen that Mr.. Archer thought
the two houses should act and vote as one
body in Joint convention, while Mr.. Ran
dolph adhered to his opinion that the
States alone could decide all matters re-
garding the electoral vote. But neither
these two nor any one else pretended that the
Vice President had any power or authority
to decide what votes should be received or
rejected
! In 1926, in the Senate, on the report of the
joint committee to report a method of ex-
amining the electoral vote" several amend
ments were proposed and some discussion
arose, when MIR. Tazewell went at some
length into an explanation and justification
of the course adopted by the committee. He
said:-"In some points in which the commit
tee on the part of the Senate would have pre-
ferred different arrangement they were
overruled by the committee on the part Of
the other house, which had its rights rs well
as the Senate. The mode reported by the
committee was precisely, however, the same
as that adopted by the Senate and agreed on
by the two houses on similar occasions,
from the year 1905 to 1917 inclusive"
Still no suggestion that the Vice Presi-
dent should decide disputed questions,
though this would have been the shortest
way out of the difficulty.
In 1887 several electors in several diff
ferent States were discovered to be dis
qualified. In the Senate, on January "a,
on a motion for the appointment of joint
committee to report q method Of examin-
ing the electoral VOTE" Mr.. Clay, after q
few remarks. offered the following amend
ment:-"And also to inquire into the ex-
pediency of ascertaining whether any votes
| ,rora .yivnp NJ tho rocapf elactiop coptrorr ~
the prohibition contained in the second
section of the second article Of the
constitution. And if any such votes
were given what ought to be done
| with them: and whether any and what