The Ouachita telegraph. [volume] (Monroe, La.) 1865-1889, 1876-03-03
HOW THE ELECTION VOTES WE'RE
COUNTED IN 1874.

COUNTED IN 1879.
(From the New York Herald.l
Are the authors Of the twenty-second
joint rule to be permitted to consign it
to oblivion and evade their responsible.
ity: The following is the clause no
longer of value to the dominant party
And no vote objected to, shall he
counted excepted by the concurrent vote oil
the two houses, which, being obtained, the
two houses shall immediately reassembe
and the presiding officer shall then an
nounce tho decision of the question, and
upon any such question there shall be no
debate In either house.
A Republican Senate and Il Republi-
can House of Representatives agreed
upon this rule in order to count the
electoral votes in 1865, and it has re-
MANNED in force until the assembling OF
the present Congress. n few extracts
from the Congressional Globe of Feb
ruary II, 1873, will demonstrate the
ease with which Il Presidential cundi-
date could, under the rule, have been
deprived of his majority had he been
unacceptable to Congress controlled
by his political opponents
Mr.. Trunbul objects to- the counting of
the votes cast for President and Vico Pros
ident by the electors in the State OF Misss-
from the certificate Of said electors thni thcy
voted by ballot.
votes OF the State OF Georgia. because the
votes reported by the tellers as having
been cast by the @ ettors ofthe State oftieor
30 lawfully counted, because said Horace
Greedy, for whom they appeared to have
been cast, WAS dead at the time said electors
assembled and cast their votcs and so not
II person within the moaning of the Consti-
tuition, this being II historic fact of which
the tive houses may nay properly take notice
that Is that we have no power to decide on,
the eligibility of amy man voted for for
President.
Mr.. Bingiam--Is tlcbatc in order?
The Speaker--lt is not.
MIR. Hoar's resolution that the electoral
votes of Georgia for Horace Grccly should
not he counted. was passed by n vote of lol
to ~.
Texas, because thorc is no certificate by the
executive authority of the State that tho
persons who voted for President and Vico
state, as required by tho act of Congress.
Mr.Dawes-l think the statute OF the State
of Texas should DO read, rs it all depends on
that.
Tho Speaker (Mr. Misunderstanding the
statute OF tho State of 'Texas would DO in the
nature of debate.
The Senate having resolved as follows:
.RcSOtccGi, That the electoral vote OF Ar
kansas should not be counted (22 for count
ing, ~ against cOunting;) and the HOUSE
! having resolved as follows:
RcsotUcl, That the electoral vote of tho
State of Arkansas. AS reported by tho tcllcrs
/ DO counted DOB for counting, % against
| counting).
| There being non-concurrcnce oftho tw,
houses Oh this question, tho vote of Arilun
| Sass, III accordance with tho provisions o
| tho joint rule, will not be counted.
| Both houses coucnrred III not countin;
| the vote of Louisiana.
| Who could have foreSeen that tn,
elections in 1864, 1868 and 1872 wcr.
Tn
not those gentlemen who have fo
eleven years been apparently unawar.
| of the dangerous nature of their owl
method of counting votes. Senator
Sherman, of Ohio, was one OF the
! tellers in 1873, yet it is but II few weeks
ago that he was heard in the Senate t.
| say that civil war was contained il
| this rule. The proposal of the Senate
to rescind the joint rule ut this particu
| lar time is a confession OF inClcfcnsibl,
partisanship in its original adoption,
and the objections of Republican Scna-
tors to consulting with the Democratic
House of Representatives may have the
effect of Withdrawing the whole dis
graceful matter from public scrutiny
and also leave us without any pre-
scribed method whatever of counting
electoral vetes. There is not a man in
the United States to-day who knows
how the votes in the approaching Pres
identiaf election arc to be counted. II
Is true, there remains the constitutional
provision that "thc President of the
Senate shall, in the presence ofthc Sen
| ate and House of Representatives, open
all the certificates, and the votes shall
| be counted" 1t seems that it was in
sufficient, as it does not say by whom
or how they are to be counted. It's
trainers, however, evidently believed
that the composition of our highest
deliberative assembly would always be
such that a simple grant of power tt
count votes would be unattended with
danger, and on the other hand that tho
people were to remain watchful and
appreciative of their rights.