The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1876-12-22

The electors of that State met and voted on
the day following the one fixed by act OF
Congress- their meeting on the proper day
having been prevented by a violent storm.
One would think that overruling necessity,
when shown, would excuse so slight devil
alton from strict compliance with the
law. But as the law was passed in execution
Of an express provision Of the Constitution,
and as the evil results of permitting States
to vote on different days are manifest, the
Wisconsin votes were strongly objected to
and they were stated only alphabetically in
tho general result, as in the prior cases OF
Missouri and Michigan. Unless plea of
necessity can be entertained in cases similar
to that of Wisconsin, the meeting Of Elec-
tors at any other time than that fixed by act
Of Congress will always render their votes
absolutely void. (Con. Art. III, Z. !, cl. 4
Amend't XII.)
8. Votes cast by immature States 1t may
be safely asserted that a State must be an
actual and not merely prospective member
OF the Union when its electoral vote is cast
that its admission into the Union afterwards,
before the count will not, by relation, vail
date lis prior votes. The cases of Indiana in
1917, OF Missouri in 1921 and of Michigan
in 1887 raised this question, or involved its
discussion, and the proceedings in Congress
upon them may be consulted for the most
remarkable illustrations of How not to do
it, which our history affords BY q ques-
tonable decision the votes of Indiana were
received and counted, but those of Missouri
aud Michigan were received sub modo and
only alphabetically stated in the general re.
suit by virtue of concurrent resolutions of the
two Houses. Substantially,th they were not al.
lowed as votes given of right by the States
in nquestion, Annals of Congress, lSl6-1Sl7,
PIP 1880; III. lS20-2l, PIP. l147-65; Ben
tons Ab. Deb XIII, 265, 27S-S0)
s. Totes from States not in a condition to
appoint Electors. A class of States falling
under this head may be described to be-
States "whose inhabitants and local author
tiles" are,at the time of appointing Electors,
"in such condition that no valid appoint
ments are made"-a description applied by
the Joint Resolution of Congress of Feb. s,
1855, (Cong. Globe, 1875, App. 1897, to
the Southern States, including Arkansas,
Louisiana and Tennessee, in which loyal
State Governments had been re-established
and in two of which electoral votes had been
east. After protractel debate in the Senate,
In which the Claims of l. ,uisiina IN particu.
lar to participate in the Presidential election
were pressed, the Resolution pass 'ed that
body by vote of 80 to 10. The refusal OF
electoral votes to Louisiana and Tennessee
on that occasion was fully justified by con-
siderations quite independent of their prior
position as seeded States, and it was by the
Resolution put distinctly upon the ground
OF their actual condition in November 1864
when their Electors had been appointed.
Their Inhabitants and local authorities"
were at that time Gin such condition" that
full, fair and free election and appointment
OF Electors had not been secured. Some
troops of the United States were stationed
In those States, exercising exceptional in.
flence upon electioas-the vote in each
was but partly polled-the local govern
ments were, if not:irreguar, at least excep-
t onal in character-aud there was some dis
trust and animosity among the people anc
between them and their rulers. AS describ-
cd by Senator Sumner, they were in their
restored position to the Union, Estates born
o. the bayonet, " and their political organi-
cations and social life were still in degree
unsettled and insecure.
The Joint Resolution of Goth July 1868,
Globe. 1868, App. 573), which denied cleo
toral votes to unreconstructed States was
in the same line Of exclusion though upon
different ground, and was more limited in its
application.
At the February count of 1859. the electo-
raj votes of Georgia were objected to upon
grounds covered by the foregoing Resolu-
tions, and were only received upon the hy-
pothesis that they would not change the
general result. The form of announcing
them was settled, upon the 'precedents of
1921, 1887 and 1857, above mentioned, but
their recognition in any form was stoutly
objected to in joint meeting. They were an
nounced in the midst of tumult and disor-
der, as had been the votes of Michigan in
1857.
At the same count of 1869, the votes from
Louisiana were objected to by Mr. Mullins
of the House of Representatives, because
mo valid election of Electors had been
held in said State" The objection was con-
sidered in each House and it was decided
to count the votes, but by motions made by
Mr.. Morton and by Mr.. Poole ia the Senate
and by Gen. Schenck in the House, it APP
pears that main reason for the decision
was that there was no proof before the Hou-
ses ts sustain the objection-not that the
objection was insufficient but that it was
unproved.-( Globe, 1869, pr. lo4S-5O,
1056-7).
In 1873 the electoral votes of Louisiana
were squarely rejected by both Houses of
Congress, voting separately after objections
made in joint meeting, and partly for rea
sons covered completely by the Resolution
of 1865. The vote to reject was adopted ia
the Senate by vote Of SO to 16, and in the
House of Representatives without a dvis.
ion.-( Globe, 1928, PIP. 1893, 1929
There can be no question, even though
there were no examples to prove it, that a
State may be in such disturbed or excep-
tional condition that no fair and true cleo
tion can be held in it or reported from it.
Its local authorities may be unreliable-its
people military force may over
aweit-corruptiOn may assalit-and fraud
may be organized to sport with and to fnlsiry
returns. The case must be an extreme one,
but when it presents itself and demand IA
made for the allowance of electoral votes
to the State, that demand should be sternly
er but the two Houses can act, or ought tu