Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1876-12-09
Senator Morton'sproposed joint rule,
after careful search, 1 could find no
precedent for such Vice Presidential
power"

Senator Morton proposed joint rule
after careful search, l could find nc
precedent for such Vice Presidential
power"
HOW THE VOTE IS COUNTED.
The invariable course has been to
appoint three tellers, two from the
Senate, to count the vote. The very
fact that a Republican Congress
passed the twenty-second joint rule,
proved the two Houses did not think
it was intended that both Houses
should sit idly by and see the vote
counted without having a voice in the
matter. That clause of the Constitu-
ton could not have been framed with
the idea that Congress should play the
absurd part of spectator to the self
adjudging actions and autocratic
ruling of one man. A vote that
cannot pass the ordeal of both Houses
must have some very suspicious
taint upon it. Any member, I be-
lieve, can raise objection to the vote
of State. I was in Congress when
the Electoral vote of 1872 was count
ed. Some one Il forget exactly
who) protested against the recep-
ton of the vote of Louisiana. Both
bodies were, as usual, assembled in
the House of Representatives, and
Immediately after the objection was
raised the Senate retired to their own
chamber. A vote was taken by both
Houses without debate, and the objec-
ton sustained. So the vote of Louisi-
ana was thrown out. I remember
that when the vote of Arkansas was
called, Senator Edmunds stepped
forward, examined the papers, and
objected to the vote on the ground
that the seal had not been placed upon
the papers. The Senate retired, the
objection was deemed good, and
Arkansas also lost her vote.
You claim, Senator, that the
President of the Senate has no pow
er to accept or reject a vote; but I do
not clearly understand where you
consider this power to be vested"
"In Congress, of course, I claim
most emphatically that
THE TwENTY-sECOND JOINT RULE
Is still in force, and I think that the
House of Representatives will so hold
it. It was the custom of the House
of Representatives from 1880 down
- "1er+ ;~ ~~Ah '.nsu Cnnsseaa the
rules of the preceding Congress,
with such alterations or additions as
they saw fit to make. During the
war, however, when one session
dovetailed as it were into the preced-
ing one with only one days inter-
mission, the rules of the preceding
Congress were, by tacit consent, con-
sidered to be in force. This was con-
tinued until the last Congress met,
when Gov. Randall moved the adop-
ton of the rules of the preceding
Congress. Gen. Garfield, I think,
remarked that it was the practice to
consider those rules in force. Ran
dali said, we intend to return to the
old custom, and adopt these rules as
formerly. These were the rules of
the House only, bear in mind. After
examining the records diligently, I
can find no single, instance in which
joint rules were re-adopted either by
the Senate or House. In order to
get rid of the twenty-second joint
rule the Senate, during the past ses-
sion, adopted all the other joint rules,
and referred the matter to the House.
The House declined to take action,
however. At the close of the session
the House desired to suspend joint
rule bearing upon the passage Of bills
during the last two days. When the
subject was referred to the Senate,
that body answered that neither that
nor any of the joint rules was in force,
as they had not been re-adopted. I
consider
A JOINT RULE LIKE ANY OTHER CONTRACT;
It cannot be passed without the con-
sent of both bodies, nor can it be alb
rogated without their mutual con-
sent. This twenty-second rule was
serviceable to the Republicans during
the electoral count Of 1864, 1868 and
1872, and they can't afford to disre-
gard it now; especially if by SO doing
they will produce serious trouble.
The latter, I sincerely hope and be-
ieve, will never occur, however"
What do You consider a majority
of the electoral vote %
cannot answer positively, but I
believe it to be majority of the vote
counted"
"Mr. Mason, Of Virginia, when
President of the Senate in 1857,
would not sustain an objection to
the vote of Wisconsin. Will not that
fact act as o precedent for the power
of Vice a;: President over the electoral
No, that is not o sufficient prec-
edent. The question at that time
was immaterial for it did not effect
the election, and Mr.. Mason's ruling
was allowed to pass unchallenged,
for the simple reason thst it saved
the trouble of extended argument
over . question that had then no inn
portance.
Suppose that when Congress
meets the Senate refuses to recog-
nize the 22d Joint Rule while, the
House, with equal persistence, in
sists upon its being still in force,
what will be The ro1u1t ~