Clarksville weekly chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1873-1890, 1876-12-02

1 IeJect lawful VOBeS, the act OF recel
ing, counting and reckoning votes
an affirmative act, and until receive
/ and counted no vote can be reckonel
IF " as Mr.. Clay said, zone hous
} should say that the vote ought to !
counted, and the other that 10 ougi
not, the vote would be lost altogether.
EACH HOUSE HAVING THE RIGHT I
OBJECT.
Aad the houses have always acte
on this assumption. No electoral vol
has ever been counted, or assumed b
be counted, against the objection o
either house. Uniformity, the house
have agreed upon some joint rule il
respect to couHting. The joint rui
passed IN 1865, so much spoken Of
4 could of course add nothing to tn
constitutional power of the two houses
In effect it only expressed what haC
been embraced in previous joint or
defs, or in the former action of tn,
houses was mere method of regula
! ting the orderly proceedings of the
bodies under the existing law, anC
was a practical construction by the
houses of their constitutional power il
this respect. Necessarily any john
rule that no vote, objected to by either
house, should BE counted, must result
either from the recognized want Of
/ power In one house to alone receive OF
leonnt electoral votes against the other
or else it must result from tie willing
ness of each house, although possess
ing the right to count the electoral
votes alone, to voluntarily abnegate
that aaost important function. and TO
agree in advance to concur without
hesitation in any objection the other
house might raise-an alternative 50
utterly opposed TO the rights and duty
of legislative body and of the oaths
of its members as to be inadmissible.
If, then, neither house has Constitu-
tional power to receive and count the
electoral votes against the objection of
the other, it anNbe of no importance
to that question whether the joint rule
be now repealed or\not.
So, too, the fact, that when objec-
ton has been raised TO any vote from
either house, the houses have at once
separated to pass, each by and for it's
elf, upon the objection, shows their
opinion of the necessity of a concur
renee of both houses in receiving and
counting electoral votes and that,
without such concurrence, neither
house of itself, nor the joint conven-
ton, was competent to receive and
count the vote objected to. If, as has
been thought by some, the joint con-
vention could act as a distinct body
and decide upon the votes to be counted,
then in February next the result will
depend on the action of the Democrats,
as their majority in the present house
much exceeds the Republican majority
in the Senate.
But how can vote, to be received
and counted by two, be counted unless
they agree? To be sure we could al
ways take the lowest count. But, to
that extent, they do agree, beyond
that, and so far as they do not agree,
there can be no count.
And so must it result either that
electoral votes can not be received or
counted without the assent Of both
Houses of Congress, or that a Vice
President can count a President in,
arbitrarily, and in defiance of Con-
gress or else that either house can
alone direct that votes shall be receiY-
ed, which, in the case of q double
vote, might necessitate the absurdity
Of counting both returns, and the vote
of the State both ways.
/ submit that alternatives so absurd
leave us with no other conclusion than
that electoral votes can be received
and counted only with the concurrence
or permission of both houses of Con-
gress.
Undoubtedly the duty of receiving
and counting the electoral vote is a
high constitutional duty, which the
members of Congress must exercise
upon their consciences and oaths of
Office; out of that duty they are the
judges, and for its discharge the Con-
stitution has not made them response
BILE to any power on earth.
HOW A FRAUDULENT RETURNING
BOARD MAY BE DEALT WITH.
Assuming, then, that the Returning
Board of Louisiana will reverse the
popular verdict of that State, will it be |
upon the houses ofCongress, |
or is there any fact, beyond the face Of |
the returns, of which the houses can
take notice? For instance, it is GER
tainiy known that Massachusetts, has
chosen Hayes electors. They will |
presently meet and vote for Hayes.
Suppose that by some fit of insanity, or
the perversion of memory, which Mr.. !
White calls "heterophemy," the clerk |
who is to engross the certificates should |
write "Tilden" instead of Hayes"
and that this should be overlooked |
while the certificates were signed and |
until opened before Congress, would |
the houses be concluded by that mis-
take or might they take notice of the
historical fact, and at least reject the
votes for Tilden if they could not
count them for Hayes 2
At any rate the houses have done
similar things. In 1857 they took no.
tice that the meeting Of electors of
had been prevented by
storm on the day required by law, and
the vote to be separately /
counted. In 1872 IN the objection Of
Mr.. Geo. Hoar, that Mr., Greeley was
dead, aud had died before the Electo-
raj College of Georgia met, "and so
was not a person within the meaning
of the Constitution, this being histor-
ic fact, of which the two houses may
take notice" the votes of
Georgia, CASTOR Greeley, were rejected.
At the same time the Senate refused
10 receive or consider an amendment
declaring that the function ofthe two
houses was ministerial merely, and |
independent of the question of the eff
feet of the vote.
But whether the houses might prop
erly take notice Of this arbitrary act Of
the Returning Board whether, having
permitted the President to set up
government without authority
Of law in Louisiana, the Federal Con-
yress are now powerless to gO behind
any false returns of the electoral vote
which thai government, though kept
up now only by military force, may
make and ascertain the true result Of
the popular vote, would not the Com
gress at least have power To- take no
tice of the public fact that the vote
returned by the Kellogg electors was
not the lawful vote Of the State of
Louisiana, and 80 decline to receive
and count itI
What occurred in 1873 may, if the
Board arbitrarily reverse
the popular verdict in that State, oc-
,ur again. After that election the
Greeley electors, acting upon the re-
,urns showing their election. met and