The daily gazette., 1876-11-14
COUNTING THE ELECTORAL VOTE.

Major Mcdonald, chief clerk of the
Senate, who has seen forty years service
in connection with that body, and who
has witnessed the counting of every cleo
toral vote since 1887, ought to be well
qualified to speak with reference to the
usage of Congress in this matter. He
usual mode was for the two houses to ap-
point joint commission, which generally
consisted of three members of the Sem
ate and five Of the House, to report the
manner in which the vote should be
counted. The commission always recon-
mended that tellers be appointed on the
part of the Senate and the House. In
1857 James M. Mason, of Virginia, presi-
dent pro. TEN. of the Senate, presided at
the counting of the electoral vote. After
it had been counted and James Buchanan
had been declared elected President, and
John G. Breckenridge vice-President, a
Representative, Humphry Marshall, arose
and raised question Of order, to wit
Had the President pro. tenn. of the Sem
ate the right to declare or to decide
whether or not the vote of the State of
Wisconsin should be counted. The
resident of the Senate pro. tem., Mr..
Mason, refused to entertain the question
of order, and thereupon left the chair and
proceeded back to the Senate Chamber,
followed by the members of the Senate,
without waiting for any question to be
put to the joint meeting. In so doing he
virtually said to both houses, "The power
Of counting or rejecting the vote OF any
State, under the constitution, is vested in
me, and in me alone; consequently all
| objections to counting the vote of any
state are entirely out of order" Major
Mcdonald is of the opinion that we are
in the some position to-day, and that un-
less some definite system is adopted we
must depend upon the judgment and
impartiality OF one man alone. That
man, of course, will be the presiding
officer of the Senate, whoever he may be,
on the second Wednesday in February.
-Wdshington Star.
OPINION OF CALEB CUSHING.
Mr.. Caleb Gushing, who is now in
| Washington, has been interviewed in re-
gard to the complication which may pos
sibly grow out of the counting of the
electoral vote. In reply to the question,
"Suppose we do discard all idea of civil
war or of the promotion of it by the pre-
sent House of Representatives, still may
not the difficulty drift on till the 4th of
March, and so leave the country without
a duly declared new President?" Mr..
Gushing is reported as replying:
| 81 do not think that will happen, for
that also would be utterly incompatible
with the quality of practical good sense
which distinguishes the people of the
| United States and their representatives
in the two houses of Congress. We are
in fact considering all the time what the
democratic majority in the House of Re-
presentatives will do. Now, if they per-
tinaciously differ with the Senate on the
point, the effect will be in the first place
to leave the government of the United
States in the hands of the very persons by
whom it is now administered. The fail.
| lure to elect or to declare elected the new
President does not dissolve the army and
navy; it does not arrest the action of the
| federal courts; it does not stop the collec-
| ton of revenue, internal or external; it
does not displace any of the heads of de-
| partmentS, executive commissions, foreign
| ministers, or any other of the civil EN-
ployees of the government. All these
persons will continue in office ,and would,
| in my opinion, be competent for the dis
charge of all their duties, even in the con-
| tilaency of the temporary noneXistence
of any President Of the United States.
| That is not state of things which the
| be supposed 10 desire. Nor, although
| the constitution does not expressly pro-
vide that in a case of non-election the
existing President shall hold over until a
new election shall have been duly effec-
| ted, yet it would not be rash to argue
that such is the implied meaning of the
| constitution. Doctrines of public law, as
illustrated in the State constitution, might
well come in to raise such an imp
| on tho fapa Of the constitution In that
| event, General Grant would continue to
| exercise the functions of President.
| Ifit be alleged that this is VIOLENT
construction of the constitution 1 reply
that it would he a much more violent
construction of the constitution to main
| tain that it intended, in certain contin-
| gencies easy to suppose, the government
| of the United States shall be left without
any head-in what is called In some
countries an acephalous condition. If
| any democratic statesman shrinks from
such supposition he will shrink, in
like manner, from forcing on such a con-
| tingency. While it is not to be imagined
| that the democratic members of the pre-
sent House of Representatives will un-
| dertake to get up civil war in every
State of the Union, neither is it to be i'm
agined that they will pursue course
/ which shall necessarily result in leaving
the government not only under the di-
rection of the existing members of the
cabinet, whose functions do not expire
with the change of President; and there
fore hold over legally, but ii may be in
the hands of President Grant himself
Once at least in the history of the United
States it occurred that twenty-four hours
elapsed after the death of one President
and before the accession ofanother. Du
ring those twenty-four hours the govern
ment went on smoothly enough in the
hands of heads of departments. If it car
do so twenty-four hours it can do so TWEEN
ty-four days or weeks. 1t is true the case
never has occurred of the President
holding over, but that would be much
less departure from form than the non
existence of an executive head of the
government. just as it is said that ma
ture abhors vacuum, so is may be sald
, that political society abhors and repek
the non-eXistence of government
WHAT MIR. II. T. MERRIcK SAYS.
MI. Richard T. Merrick, a distinguished
washinpton LAWYER, in an interview will