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, 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 Its 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, depositng 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 debatable 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 presl-
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 falsified and bo'
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 countenance 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
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 Iork's alb
lest constitutional lawyers, In the following
extract from a 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.
| II is only the electors of the states VINO nave
! a right to vote. All that the constitution says
| i, that 1.-THE president of the senate shall, IN
the presence of the senate and mousse OF rep
resentatives, open all the certificates and the
votes shall be counted" Counted by whom
the constitution does not say. But certainly
not by the president of tie senate.
| "Would the house." asked Mr.. Clay, on the
objection TO the vote of Missouri in 1921, sal
low the vice president singly and alone thus
virtually to decide the question OF the legal
itv of the votes" And no one then pretended
| that it would. "The constitution" Mr.. Clay
| further said, requires the two houses to as
semble and perform the highest duty that
could devolve on public body, to ascertain
who had been elected by the people 10 admin
lister the national concerns. In case of votes
,orr;pr fnrUnrd which could not be counted
the constitution was silent but, fortunately,
the END in that case carried with it the means.
| The ttrO houses tcere called upon to eRHHerdf6
tie cotes for president and vice president. "
course Ney are called on 10 decide riIdt are
rotes" ANNALS Con-, p. l,150.)
But whatever may beithought OF 1t as an
original question, Mr. Potter proceeds TO show
that the practice of the government, in noiess
than IS 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
iectad TO-. the question would be, Shall the
vote OF this state be counted? ltwould clear
y require an affirmative vote of both houses,
after such objection raised, 10 count the vote
Of the state.
well, but then" the obiector to this view