Clearfield Republican. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1851-1937, 1877-01-24
copNTlNe raE !IorEs.

fNs. ''N :. - ~ Af'J
!. S,a.. s,'a !, ! ~ y !,
die ground between The co ORDINATE
-sn's7-1-sss~7stJrh3- -i7r-----~--IfSsy,
considered as separate bodies. and the
proposition that neither of them is
anything but witncssto the perform.
ancc Of the net Of counting the votes
by The President OF the Senate, or by
somebody else.
Mr. fuckers fourth proposition is
in our judgment equally correct. 1t is,
that in the counting of the electoral
votes no vote can be counted against
the judgment and assent of the House
Of Representatives. This follows ne.
cessarily, from the constitutional pro
vision which does not make joint as
sembly OF the two Houses, into which
they would be merged, and in which
they would together form a third body
II the two Houses have any function
TO perform in the counting Of the elec.
Ioral votes, except that Of being pres.
cnt, Us mere witnesses aud spectators OF
what ~ done by somebody else, each
Of them must act independently and
atiirmatively in the counting of the
votes of any State. In other words,
the counting of any vote must be BY
the concurrent act oftwo independent
bodies otherwise il would follow that
the Senate, for example, is to perform
the affirmative duty OF counting, end
that the House can only raise objec-
tions on which the Senate is to pass.
This would at once reduce the House
to function subordinate to that of the
Senate a result TO which the people
OF this country will certainly no. sub.
mt.
On the other hand, it is not true. as
Mr.. Seelye asserts, that what he calls
the rejection of any electoral vote must
necessarily be concurrent act When
ever the concurrence of two seperate
bodies is necessary to an Affirmative
net, as is clearly the case in counting
the electoral votes, there is, properly
speaking, no rejection of anything that
is offered excepting by the failure to
do the affirmative act through non
concurrence in that act. And there
fore the following proposition of Mr..
Seelye Is unsound, namely "rhat it
is the duty of the House OF Repre-.
scntatives to accept every properly
certified electoral vote which the two
Houses do not agree to reject as con
trary to law This is an entire re-
versal of the true position under the
Constitution.
AS soon as Mr.. Seelye admits, as he
does, that the privileges, powers, and
duties of the House in counting the
votes are no more and no less than
those of the Senate, he admits that the
two bodies have an affirmative func-
tion to perform which is 10 concur in
counting any vote that comes before
them. 1t follows, from this, as ne
cessary consequence, that il, in any
case, the two Houses do not concur in
the affirmative act of counting any
particular vote, that vote cannot be
included in the enumeration OF the
whole number OF votes, or in the enum-
Grafton Of the votes for particular
candidate.
1t is entirely incorrect TO argue
about the power OF either the Senate
or the House to reject votes, or about
their concurrrencei in rejection of any
vote. Whit they are TO concur in is
in the counting that is 10 say, in the
inclusion Of any vote in the enumera-
tion OF the votes, which is TO decide
the election Ii there is no such con.
currcnce in the affirmative act of re.
ceiving particular vote, il is not ne.
cessary that there should be a concur
renee in the rejection of that vote.
Any other construction or rule of ac-
tion would reduce. the House to the
mere function of making an objection
withou: any power to give it effect,
and the Senate would be the only
body thai would determine the cleo.
tion.
We trust and believe that the House
Of Representatives will assert the true
doctrine on this subject, and will not
allow itself to be misled by the idea
that there is any necessity for submit
ting its objections to any of the votes
TO the final concurrence of the Senate
in those objections. When the two
Houses meet to count the votes, they
must concur in counting, and need not
eenear in rejectlng.-N Y, San.