The daily gazette., 1876-12-05

rule was framed. The twenty-second
joint rule prohibits debate on any pro-
position which may be made, and this
prohibition of course falls to the ground
with the rule. But the right of making,
hearing and voting on objections to the
reception of a States vote must be fun
damental, because it could not be con-
ferrcd by q mere rule. 1t must have
been rounded on the cons titution, else
Congress would have been acting in yio-
lation of the constitution, which is not
to be supposed when SO many able and
careful constitutional lawyers are in both
houses.
4. In 1873 the votes of Georgia, Ar
kansas, Texas and and Louisiana were
formally objected to on vaIious grounds,
and an examination of the proceedings
shows that most of the leading republican
Senators unequivocally, by their remarks
and their votes, accepted the following
positions as unquestionably constitution
al:-First, that the electoral vote of
State is proper subject for the scrutiny
of the joint convention; second, that it is
equally within the power of the two
houses, acting separately, to scrutinize it;
third, that the electoral vote of State
may be thrown out, and fourth, that the
objection to it being sustained in one
house, the exclusion follows as matter
of right. OF course all the action in
1873 was taken under the twenty-second
joint rule; but we repeat again that no
one has ever pretended, and no one can
pretend, that mere joint rule could au-
thorize or confer the power to exclude the
vote of a State; so great an authority
could be derived only from the constitu-
tion, by those who framed and acted un-
der the rule. 1t is of interest to review
some of the proceedings in 1873. When
one of the tellers Mr.. Beck, announced
the vote of Georgia, Mr.. Hoar, republican
objected to the count of three votes cast
for Mr.. Greedy, on the ground that he
was dead at the time, and the House in
dependently considered and voted on the
question. When the two houses had sep
arated Mr.. Edmunds, of Vermont, one Of
the ablest lawyers in the Senate, offered
a resolution '.that the electoral votes OF
Georgia cast for HoraceI Greedy be not
counted" On this Senators Edmunds,
Chandler (now Secretary of the Interior,l
Morrill,, of Vermont; Morton and other
republicans voted yea-to exclude the
votes. MIR. Conkling moved to amend
the resolution by adding, ''the functions
of the joint convention being ministered
only" One Senator, Sherman, asked him
to withdraw the amendment, as sit re-
quires us to vote on question of great
difficulty without Debates" and it was
withdrawn. On that occasion the Vice
President said:-"The language of the
constitution is, ''the President of the Sen
ate and House of Representatives, open
all the certificates, and the vote shall then
be counted; and the question in dispute
has been whether they shall be counted
by the two hOdses, or whether they shall
be counted by the presiding officer. The
twenty-second joint rule, which remitted
this question distinctly to the houses of
Congress, thereby expressed their opinion
that the President of the Senate had sim
ply one duty to perform-to open the GER
titicateS."
The next question arose on the vote of
Texas, and on the fact that the certifi-
cate of the electors was not signed by the
Governor, but by the Secretary of State.
Senator Trumbull moved ''that the vote
of said State cannot be counted" His
motion was lost; but among those who
voted to exclude We're Senators Clayton,
of Arkansas; Edmunds, Hamlin, Morton,
Schurz and West.
Arkansas came next. Senator Rice, of
that State, objected to the vote being
counted; first, because the 'otficial re-
turns of electors, made according to the
law of said State, show that the persons
certified by the Secretary of State As
elected were not elected us electors for
President and Vice President; second,
because the returns read by the tellers
are not certified according to law" On
this Senator Edmunds moved "that the
electoral vote of Arkansas should not be
counted" and Senators Edmunds, Ferry,
of Michigan (acting Vice President now;
Hamlin, Morrill,, of Maine; Schurz,
Trumbull and others voted yea-for the
exclusion.
The case of Louisiana followed Sena-
tor Carpenter moved that the vote of
Louisiana be not counted. Senator Ere
linghuysen amended this so as to makeit
read "that all the objections presented
having been considered, no electoral
vote purporting to be that of the State of
Louisiana be counted" Twosets of cleo
tors had sent in their returns. Senator
Trumbull offered long preamble, recit-
ing certain facts concerning those double
returns. Senator West, of Louisiana, OBJ
jected to the reading and Mr.. Conking
supported Mr.. West both objecting on
the ground that the twenty-second joint
rule forbade debate and that Mr.. TTum-
DullS preamble was OF tne nature OF us
cusson. Mr.. Trumbull thereupon offer
ed a resolution that the votes of the cleo
tors, whom he believed to be entitled, "bc
counted Against this and for exclusion
voted Senators Anthony, Carpenter,
chandler, Clayton, Edmunds, Ferry, OF
Michigan; ;Frelinghuysen, Hamlin, Howe,
Logan, Morrill,, of Vermont; Morrill,, of
Maine; Morton, Sherman, West and
others to the number of thirty-fivc.
Thereupon Mr. Frelinghuysen's motion
for the total exclusion of Louisiana was
adopted, the same Senators just named
all voting for the exclusion.
Now it seems to us that the Senators
above named, who include the flower of
the republican side in the present Senate,
are by their own acts and votes in the
Senate and by their countenance of the
action of the House for exclusion, con-
cluded from claiming that this action is