The Findlay Jeffersonian. [volume] (Findlay, Hancock County, Ohio) 1870-1881, 1877-01-05
dent of the Senate, but he could coub
the votes without presiding, and b.
still objected, but the Hoass xsssA tans
he should preside.

n l oNS@3S HANS-2~.
"A Benton, Alb. "a and los.
E 1913.
Proceedings very similar, and nc
questions raised. The same certificate.
: again given.
eI 4 Benton, 573.l
Tie course of procedure Was tbs
same as before, and the same oertifi
sate again awarded
When the vote vf Indiana was reach
I'd, Mr.. Taylor, of New York, rose
and addressed the Speaker of th.
House, objected to the votes of Indi
ma being read and recorded, when tn,
Speaker interrupted him and said tina
he House had met for that purpose
rhe single specific purpose-of perform
ing a Constitutional duty, and while s.
acting in joint meeting could conside,
no proposition, nor perform any bus
mess not prescribed by the C ,nstitu-
ton.
On tho motion of q Senator, th.
Senate then Withdrew, and Mr. Tay 10,
proceeded to state his objections (thai
Indiana had not been formally admit
ed as Stats), but he said he did no
know what would be the proper mode
Of proceeding, but believed it woule
be best to adopt joint resolution tha
the votes of Inciana be not received
Afterward he changed the resolution
so as to declare the votes illegal.
There was no general discussion, and
the whole matter was indefinitely post
poBed The Senate then returned,
and the vote was completed.
| [5 Benton, 662.
1912.
At this election the admission o.
Missouri was pending, but the State
voted for President, and, to escape any
determination of the question, Mr.
Clay, from joint committee, reported
a resolution that if the vote of Missouri |
was objected to. the result would b.
announced, both with and wirhou'
that vote, and that in either event A |
B is elected, &c.
Mr.. Randolph objected, end said he
could not recognize in either House. |
.ingly or conjOintly, the power 70 de-
eide OH the vote of any State. III. |
maintained that the Electoral College |
was independent of Congress, and Con
gress had no right TO judge of the pro |
ceedings.
Sew raj others also objected, but Mr.. |
Clay urged the resolution as the only
way to avoid discussion when the votes
were counted, for il some such resolu
ton were not adopted beforehand. the
President Of the Senate would proceed
to open aud count the votes. Would
the House leave il to that officer to de
eide the question: Yet this was th,
only way to avoid it, for there was Ne
way pointed ont in the Constitution oi
settl ng litigated questions arising il
the discharge of this duty. and the de
&c, should he supplied. either ", i"gis
lation or an amendment of the Cons,i-
tuition.
| rI,ar. to
but nevertheless, when the vote oil
Missouri was reached. objection wa,
made, the Senate withdrew, and long
debate followed, chiefly upon the right
of Missouri to vote. 1t was terminated
by a resolution to resume the count.
and it was done, and the vote announc-
ed as provided by the joint resolution,
and the question was thus avoided.
| 1925.
From 1920 to 1857 the mode of pro
ceedure was uniformly e. above stated. |
The presiding officers of the Senate
opened the ballots and handed them to |
the tellers, who tabulated them as de-
Iivered to them, and from the table 80
prepared, the Presiding Ofnoer of the
Senate announced the result. During |
this period there was no debate, and no
objection made to any vote. But il
1887 the Presiding Officer announced
the result with or without the vote of
Michigan, as Il made no difference.
| 1857
In this year, the Electors of Wiseon
sin, were prevented by snow storm
from assembling at the Capital on the
day fixed by Law. but cast their voter
the next day for John c. Fremont.
On February 11th the two Houss,
met in the the hall of the House OF
Representatives, aud Mr.. Mason, OF |
Virginie. the Presiding Officer OF the
Senate, announced that he would pro- |
ceed TO open and count the votes for
President and Vice President. He then
preceded to open the ballots, and
handed them to the tellers, stating thai
the duty of counting he vote devolved
upon them.
When the vote of Wisconsin was
reached, Mr.. Letcher objected to its
reception. The presiding officer re
piled that debate was not in order |
while the tellers were counting the |
votes. One of the tellers SAID he sup
posed the proper way was for the tell
ers to report the facts to the conven-
ton of the two Houses and let them
decide. to which the presiding officer
assented.
\ Mr.. Sm -th, of Tennessee asked il . mo-
ton 70 receive the vote would be 10
order The presiding officer replied il
would not.
When the tellers reported the state
of the vote. Mr.. Leteher ag; In tried TO
object, but was ruled out of order.
Senator Crittenden asked il Congress
would pass Oh the question in any
form.
The presidir 9 officer ruled that
nothing could be done there but 10
count by tellers and declare the result.
Any further action must be taken by
the Senate or House, as the case might
be. and then proceeded TO declare the
result, giving James Buchanan 174
votes. and John G. Fremont ia, whict
included five votes from Wisconsin.