The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1876-11-30
COUNTING THE VOTE.


the subject appeared few lays since in
the New York Uerahd, from Hon. Clark
son n. Potter, II neighbor aud intimate
friend OF Gov. i'iiicn; and, although ne
claims that the views given are simply
his idea Of the law of the case, we may
fairly conclude that they are consistent
to, and in accordance with, Coy. T.Iden's
view Of the matter, and are, to say the
least Of them semi official. Mr.. Potter
Is All able Inau, and one among the fore
most politicians Of the State Of New
York, and also member OF Congress
from that State, which gives the more
importance to the views he entcrtaiDs.
He reviews at length the government Of
Louisiana, showing its corruption and
the peculiar character Of the returning
board there, which makes the vote Of
that State almost certain to be given by
fraud TO Hayes.
Next, he cites the provision of the
Constitution rs amended for counting
the vote for President and Vice PTesi-
dent which is in the following words :
"The President Of the Senate shall, in
the presence of the Senate and House Of
Representatives, open all the certificates,
aud the votes shall then be counted"
From this he argues that the counting
must not he done by the president of the
Senate, but b. the two houses of Con-
for tnt
president of the Senate shall open ali
the certificates, and the rotcs shall then be
counted. not that he shall open and count
the votes. That as the Constitution de-
wolves th, dut y upon both houses of
Congress, it j, necessary for both houses
to agree in order for any vote to be
counted. The Constitution then says
"and if no person have such q majority,
then from the persons having the highest
number Of votes, not exceeding three, OH
the list Of those voted for as President,
the House of Representatives shall choose
Immediately by ballot the President" !"
This clause shows clearly that it was the
intention Of the Constitution to make the
House of Representatives the judge rs to
whether any one has been elected Prcsi-
dent, for if not, it would have provided
that the person or body having the right
to decide the election should inform the
House if there should be no cleo
ton, and then that body should pro-
cccd to elect. The absence of such a
81,
meant to give the House or Senate the
right to reject any vote in their joint ses-
sion, and upon such objection, the House
being present, must, if no one had n ma
ijority Of all the votcs, proceed to elect g
President; and to- make this view clearer,
the same article Of the Constitution pro-
vides that if the House does not elect by
the fourth of March, then the Vice Pres
idcnt shall be President.
This is the view OF this question which
the Republicans have always held and
acted OIL, and Mr.. Po:ter's reasoning
upon it is conclusive.
In support of the position that both
Houses of Congress must concur 70 count
the vote Of any State, he cites the record
of oil preceding votes for President,
where. votes Of my State were objected
to, showing in each instance that both
Houses must agree to count the vote or
it must be rejected, and showing further
that the President of the Senate has
never decided in favor of any vote except
RI; kaA h.. II
Representatives. In 1917 the two Houses
consented TO the counting of the vo.e OF
Indiana, which was at first objected to,
and the President of the Senate counted
it as directed. In 1921 the vote of Mis-
souri, Yves objected to, and the two Houses
directed the President of tho Senate as
the form in which he should announce
the result. In 1857 the Vice President
decided that the tellers of the two Houses
must count the vote, and it was counted
by them. In 1866 the two Houses direc-
ted the Vice President not TO open the
votes of Tennessee and Louisiana, and
he oboyed tho instructions. Il 1889 Tic
votes of Louisiana and Georgia were
objected to, and the Vice President,
under direction of both Houses, counted
them. In 1873 the Vice President
opened the returns and refused to count
the votes of Georgia, Arkansas and
Louisiana because the House of Repre-
sentatives and Senate objected, and al
though the votes of Texas and Missis-
sippi were objected to, they were counted
because both Houses of Congress direc-
ted it. The adoption of joint rule is
not necessary, rs the precedent is firmly
established by tho practice of every cleo
ton. In 1867 the two Houses directed
the vote of Wisconsin to be counted
separately, because snow storm preven-
ted its being cast on the proper day; and
in 1873, when two sets of electoral votes
were sent up by Louisiana, both were
rejected, and the vote of Georgia was
rejected because it was cast for Greeley,
who was then dead. These instances
show clearly that both Houses must act
together to count any vote, and OF course
an objection by either House would re-
ject the vote of any State.
Having shown the known corruption
of the Louisiana returning board, and
the right of the House to reject any vote,
he says .hat tho vote of Louisiana-and
We may add South Carolina-Mill not be