National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1877-01-05
REPORT OF DEMOCRATIC WITNESSES ON COUNT



toral vote, He could not agree with some of the
views expressed by the Senator from Iowa, Mr.
WRIGHT and desired to express his dissent now.
The Senator from Iowa had argued that it was
the right and duty of the presiding officer of the
Senate to count the vote; that the duty was i'm
posed upon him. He lMr. KEENAs) could not
agree to that construction OF the Constitution.
He did not think 1t was the intention OF the
trainers Of the Constitution to impose any such
had the right, and had imposed upon them BY the
Constitution the duty of counting the vote. He
then quoted from the Constitution, and said the
duty devolved upon the two Houses Of Congress,
representing the States and the people, TO see
that no improper or fraudulent vote was counted.
He did not desire to argue this question
two Houses Of Congress were not to sit dumb
like statues and see wrong go on. The practice
Of counting the vote had not been in accordance
with any such construction OF the Constitution.
On every occasion each House had appointed
tellers to count the votes and, as he read the
precedents, on every occasion when any question
had arisen in regard to counting Q certificate tho
two Houses had separated to decide the matter
1t had never been held that the President of the
Senate had the constitutional duty or right to
count vote
He then quoted from numerous presidents, and
referred to the case of Missouri in 1871 In regard
might be question raised as to the vote of that
State committee Of the two Houses agreed upon
resolution that If any objection should be made
omitng to eount the same would no. cnanRs sS S
result of the election, such result should be
stated both ways, with and without the vote Of
Missouri. He argued that 1t would not be wise
now for Congress to attempt to give q new con-
struction to the Constitution, which would
greatly add to what all deprecated, the heat and
excitement Of the hour.
Every Senator and every Representative In
Congress should enter upon the discharge of this
duty Of counting the vote without prejudice with.
out Partially. At this time every man should
remember that the important questions before
Congress arose above all party questions. In
counting the electoral vote, If a case came up
where there was fraud, and where It was shown
beyond q doubt that the certificate was false
hood, the safety Of the Government and the
peace of the people demanded that 1t should not
be counted. He united with all men In the hope
and the belief that all these questions would be
settled according to the Cons and the law
and that the real truth would prevail.
Mr.. SHERMAN, Of Ohio, inquired II the result
Of either House Directing to the counting Of the
vote Of State would be the exclusion of that
vote.
Mr.. HERMAN said he would like to have that
matter discussed.
Mr.. SHERMAN said he did not intend to ex-
press his opinion upon these questions about to
arise, but he would examine them calmly and
dispassonately. He had no DOUBT that when the
two Houses concurred that the vote Of the State
was fraudulent It should not be counted, but II
the two Houses disagreed as to the count Of .
vote, it would be revolutionary IL the objection Of
either House could exclude that vote. -