The Cairo bulletin. [volume] (Cairo, Ill.) 1872-1878, 1876-11-30

luton to the elect that no elcctOral vOtcG
should be received from the States OF
Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Texas aud Virginia, which was referred
to the judiciary committee.
On the 30th OF January, 1865, Mr.. vii.
son obtained the unanimous consent oil
the house to report the resolution back
from the committee.
Mr.. Mallory, of Virginia, a member OIL
the house committee on rules, objected
to the joint resolution and made an un'
successful endeavor to substitute for II
a resolution from his committee. which
he claimed would over the whole case
more satisfactorily and obyiate the neces
sity of excluding any state from the cleo
torial college by name.
This was substantially the same az
the Twenty-second joint rule, with the
exception that it made no provision fol
the separation of the two houses upon
any question of disagreement. 1t was
not entertained, however, and the VIII.
son resolution was passed.
On the LIST of February it was intro.
duced in the senate, just week before
the electoral vote was to be counted.
\ long debate ensued. occupying scy'
eral days, in which Mr.. Ten Eyck, of New
Jersey, was particularly conspicous in
his opposition to the exclusion OF Louisi
ana, claiming that this state, then under
the governorshp of Michael Hahn, reg
uarly elected, was fully restored to the
Union and entitled to q voice in the cleo
ton OF president and yice-president. Mr,
TenEyck's position was strenously COM
batted by others on the ground that no
state could be relieved of its insurrectlon.
airy relations to the government, except.
ing by.a formal revocation of the presi.
dents proclamation. SO the Joint reso'
luton was agreed to on the 4th of Febru
airy, 1865.
In the meantime, evidently in doubt
whether this resolution would meet the
approval of President Lincoln, the spc
ia committee on the counting OF the elec
tOral votes. had prepared rule, which
was introduced on the 9Th of February
by MIR. Trumbull as matter upon which
the prompt action of congress was Gin
dlspensablY necessary 1t did not con
flict at all with the joint resolution jus
before adopted, but in case the latter di
not receive the executive sanction, woul
have answered an equally effective pur
pose and enabled the disfranclsement o
any state which il was deemed expedien
to exclude from the college.
Two days later, all doubts that eXiste,
as to Mr.. lincoln's views were remove,
by his message to congress in which b
says:
| MR.. LINCoLN's MESSAGE.
To the Hon. the senate aud house Of reE
resentatives
The joint resolution entitled Joint RI
solution declaring certain states nc
entitled to representation i'm the elector;
1 COliCzC HIS Dcclt ny tIlC cAtCt
tive. in Difference to the views of col
gress, implied in its passage and preser
tation to him. In his own view, how
| ever, the two houses OF congress COZ
| yened under the Twelfth article of tn
| clude from counting all electoral vote
deemed by them to be illegal. Ana 1t
not competent for the executive to deies
or obstruct that power by veto. &
| would be the case il his action were at a
essential i'm the matter. He disclaims Il
| right of the executive to interfere in an
| way in the matter Of canvassing {
counting electoral votes, and he also di!
claims that by signing said resolution
| expressed any opinion on the recital G
the preamble. or any judgment of h
own upon the subject of the resolution
ABRAHAM LINCOLN,
Executive Mansion, February s, lsG
AN OBJECTION TO THE RULE.
The rule submitted by Mr.. Trumbu
became the Twenty-second joint rul,
but not without some objections. Imm
diately upon its introduction, Senate
! Cowan, of Pennsylvania, remarked:
"There is one difficulty in the way.
is provided by this concurrent resolutio
that whenever question shall arise as
the counting OF any vote, the house
shall separate and separately consider I'll
matter. Now, suppose that the questio
is. whether the vote of Louisiana shall
admitted. The senate retires to its chan
Der and decides that it shall. The hous
of representative organizes and decid,
that it shall not. How is the question
be determined ~
AN EXPLICIT ANSWER.
MIR. TRANQUIL thereupon replied: 4"
falls of course. The rotc ,could not
counted"
Mr.. COwan was not satisfied with I'll
solution of his conundrum. He thougI
there was fundamental mistake in Il
rule. In his opinion it devolved upc
the two houses jointly to decide que
tons of this character. It was evident
him that they were assembled with son
| joint power and authority in the prem
ises. They cannot be supposed to be me
idle and Indifferent spectators. because
such case the votes might be counts
separately in the separate chamber
Therefore he thought the provisions o
jectionable. Either one of the hous
could distranchise state, according
its own construction Of the rule. 10.
Mr.. Trumbull suggested that the co
current action Of the houses was entire
practicable and that Commodities ofcontt
ence might be resorted to, in order
bring about an acceptable adjustment
their controversies. Such questions,