The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1876-11-25

HAT the Presiaess 81 ahs Senate
Gouatr the yoae-The Probable Rs-
suit a Csnaiet Besween tie Two
Houses.
from the New York HeraidI
Speaking of the letter signed by
Sherman. Matthews and others. TO the
Democratic Committee, Mr. Butler
. said
They proceed to say as follows 'If
the duties OF the Canvassing Board of
| Louisiana were merely ministerial or
clerical. rs in the case of any officer
charged by law with the duty of verify
/ ing and declaring the result of any
election or investigation with no dis
erection, a. when the President of the
Senate counts aud deelarer the votes of
the electors of the several States in the
election of President and viee-Presi-
dent under tire Constitution of the
United States q different case would be
prcscffted Admitting for the moment
their assumption that the President of
the Senate IS TO count the electoral
votes, IN the presence ofthet two Houses
they make the very significant admission
that he i. ministerial or clerical officer
only; that II. that he has no other
power than To simply count the votes
that are certified to him without any
power 10 adJlulse whether the certificates
are genuine or forged. or whether the
votes have been properly or improperly
cast, 50 that ii the president knew that
an eiector had voted for gwen man as
president for bribe paid in hand
of many thousand dollars he would
have no other right or duty but to
count his vote Taking theirassumption
also, and considering the Republicans
have the president OF the Senate, this
IS a very remarkable giving up of power
in the president of the Senate, aud an
invitation. as it seems to me, 10 ANYBODY
% get electoral votes before him Of any
sort, and they win be available and
counted | by no raeans agree that
the president of the Senate has the
counting of the votes The words
of the constitution are; They 1.-THE
eertihcatesl shall be opened by the
president of the Senate, IN the presence
of both Houses, aud the votes shall
then be counted. Ii the constitution
meant that the president of the Senate
should count the votes, why, it was
very etsy 10 say, +" He shall open the
certificates and count the votes in the
presence OF both Houses. The uniform
practice of the government has been
since its formation that the votes should
be counted by the teliers appointed by
both Houses, acting of course. as the
eyes ana ears OF the two Houses under
their inspection; and thus we have
contenporaneous construction of this
he
and continuance of acquieseeuce ever
since by all parties. There is but one
dicturn against this that know OF, and
thai is by Chancellor Kent, who, when
speaking OF the danger and possible
troubles that might arise under this
constitutional provision, says, THE
votes are to be counted by the President
OF the Senate, presume" but enters in
10 no reasoning upon the question. and
evidently had not given it a thought
OF course acting under the constitu.
tonal provision, if the President of the
Senate has right to count the votes at
all il must be a prerogative or power
given him 10y the constitution. There
fore it is no answer TO the continuous
usage in counting the votes by both to
say that that was done under Joint
rule because. if the President OF the
Senate has the power by the constitu-
ton, no Joint rule OF the two Houses
ought or could deprive him oil il. IN
fact, that joint rule Of the two Houses
was only declaration of convenient
mode by those bodies of doing the
counting of the electoral votes, which
they assumed the prerosative to do.
Reporter--Do you think, then, that
the two Houses must agree on thevotes
before they can be eounted7
General Butler-if any instrument
says that A and Is are TO do thing
for example, 10 make an award or enter
iulgment--can A do il without or
b without \ If both Houses are to
count BY the Constitution, can one
count without the other9 lfso, which?
II our Republican friends in Louisiana,
in that letter, had claimed the right in
the President OF the Senate to adjudi-
cate as to the propriety or rightfulness
of the eieetoral vete when they made
the claim that he was to count them,
should have thought it very significant
bat as they have insisted that he is
merely d machine or clerk to register
what NAV be sent him, ] do not think
the Democratic party will be likely TO
be much moved by their manifesto
which certainly leaves the President of
the Senate about as harmless piece OF
clockwork as could we'll be inn
agined, it being his only duty to pick
out what is placed IN the wheels be
/ lieye thai whoever has the counting OF
the vote in the last resort to determine
an election has right to serutinize
that vote, ascertain lis legality. its fair
ness and truthfalness, and whether it
represents in the case Of a vote by proxy,
US the electors are, the will of the PEG
| pie who are their constituents. All that
| OF course can NOT be done by the Presi-
| dent Of the Senate. and, therefore, must
be done 10y the two Houses. ii can
| be done by the President of the Senate,
| then the most alarming stride against
| the rights of the people has been taken
@hen the claim is haade that the Presi-
dent OF the Senate is 70 count the votes
! Fortunately, however, the claim thus
made by this very respectable body of
Republicans in louisiana, is entirely
emaseutated by the conoemitant asser-
ton that the President of the Senate is
to be a supple machine, ministerial
officer o~eierk.
Rep--Weii, what is to be the out
come of all this. if the two Houses do
not agree in the count of the votes.
General Butier--I cannot for a mo-
ment contemplate or entertain the idea
/ that if there IL a fairly expressed MAJ
l.lority of the vote of the Electoral Col
lege, properly and justly shown for
either OF the candidates, that either
House or Senate Will fractiously take
any step to prevent the counting and
4 dee arailo of the votes in favor Of the
persons sochosen- The people of this
country would hurl to destruction any
! party which should undertake SO gross
an outrage Une vote majority fairly
thrown and properly counted, is as
good as one thousand under our system
OF determining elections ! can con.
cejye Of no greater danger to our form
of government. nay. TO the very Gov
ernment itself. than the idea, il it be
entertained, that the win of the major
i ity may lie overcome By force, or fraud.