The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1876-12-02
WHATS THE LAW!

WHATS THE LAW!
There being no hope for an honest solution
of the presidential muddle in the Southern
returning boards, the attention of the country
Is turning to the powers and probable action
of congress on the subject. The directions of
the constitution in the case are few and SIM
pie Firstly it says:
Each state shall appoint IN such manner
as the Legislature thereof may direct, a num-
Der Of electors, equal to the whole number of
Senators and Representatives to which the
State may be entitled IN the Congress.
There is here no limit upon the manner in
which the states may appoint their electors.
They may elect them by single districts, by a
general ticket, or by their legislatures. The
only limitation is that when the state has de-
cided on the mode of choosing It's electors,
that mode must be pursued with reasonable
honesty.
The electors having been chosen, a law of
congress requires them to meet at the capitals
of their respective states on the first Wednes-
day IN December ensuing and cast their votes
for president, making two certificates of the
result depositlng one copy with the authori-
ties of the state and transmitting the other, by
one of their own number, to the President of
the Senate On the second Wednesday OF
February the two houses of congress are to
meet IN convention, and then, says the con.
stitution,-
The President of the Senate shall, in pres
ence of the Senate and House of Representa-
tives, open all the certificates, and the votes
shall be counted. The person having the
greatest number of votes shall be president.
And here the only deba,able point comes
IN. The republicans contend that under this
clause of the constitution all that either or both
houses of congress can do is simply to wit
ness the opening OF the returns, see the presI-
dent of the Senate count them, and hear his
announcement OF the result. No matter what
frauds may have been committed in any state,
no matter whether rascally republican secre-
tary or governor even of New York might
duplicate the electoral certificates from that
state and the President of the Senate might
lay before the two houses the falstied and DO.
gus certificate, giving the vote of New York
to Hayes the two houses are helpless in the
case, and must accept as final the vote as an
nounced by the President Of the Senate!
It is needless 10 say that by no action OF
congress in the history of the government has
there ever been any countenancc given to
such a monstrous assumption. The adoption
of the famous 23d rule by the last republican
congress, under which the presidential vote
of several states was thrown out in 1872, was
"a contradiction OF that assumption. On the
contrary, what congress are authorized TO do
under the clause just quoted Is exactly stated
by Mr. c. n Potter, one OF New York's abb
lest constitutional lawyers, in the following
extract from q recent letter of his:
This clause of the constitution gives the
president of the senate no authority to count
the votes-meaning, by " counting" the right
of ascertaining and receiving the votes. For
to count the votes Is to decide what are votes.
1t is only the electors of the states who have
u right To vote. All that the constitution says
j. that THE president Of the senate shall, IN
the presence of the senate and mousse oil rep
Tesentatives, open all the certificates, and the
votes shall be counted" Counted by whom
the constitution does not say. But certainly
not bv the president of tie senate.
Would the house." asked Mr.. Clay, on the
objection to the vote of Missouri in 1921, "al-
low the vice president singly and alone thus
virtually TO decide the question of the legal
ity of the votes" And no one then pretended
that it would. "The constitution" Mr. Clay
further said "requires the two houses to as
semblc and perform the highest duty that
could devolvc on public body. TO ascertain
who had been elected by the people to admin
lister the national concerns. In case of votes
coming forward which could not be counted
the constitution was silent; but, fortunately,
the end in that case carried with it the means.
The tirO houses trCre called upon 10 eRYHierdto
he roies for president and vice president ~
course hfy are called 0n 10 decide irhdt are
rotcS." ANNALS Con, p. 1862
But whatever may be'thought OF 1t as an
original question, Mr.. Potter proceeds TO show
that thu practice of the government, in noiess
than 20 instances, has settled it that not the
vice president but the two houses OF congress
must do the counting and decide what votes
are proper 10 be counted.
The only remaining question Is, must the
two houses decide on the validity OF the vote
of ANY state objected to as one body, or must
each house decide for itself, and the two agree
to make the decision effective? The weight
Of authority is certainly in favor of the lat
e.. Should Louisiana, for instance, be OBJ
jectad to, the question would be, Shall the
vote OF this state be counteds Itwould clear
y require an affirmative vote OF both houses,
after such objection raised, 10 count the vote
Of the state
We'll, but then" the objector to this view