The Kenosha telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1860-1888, 1877-02-01


are untrue in fact"
( The Senate withdrew to it's chamber.
The Senate and House separately de-
cided to count the votes of Mississippi
and Texas, and not to count the votes
of Louisiana. The Senate resolved that
the votes of Georgia for Horace Gree
ley be counted, but the House decided
not to count such votes; SO, under the
22d joint rule, they were not counted.
The House resolved that the vote of
/ Arkansas be counted, but the Senate
disagreed, and the votes of Arkansas
We're not counted.
Whereupon, the count being complet-
ed, the President of the Senate declared
as the result that Ulysses S. Grant, Of
Illinois, was duly elected President,
and Henry Wilson, of Massachusetts,,
/ Vice President, OF the United States.
Thus, from the first count in 1880 to
the adoption in 1865 Of the 22d joint
rule, the votes of the electoral colleges
were, without challenge by either
House, opened, counted, and declared
| by the President of the Senate (and by
| that officer for ten successive counts
| formally certified over his signature in
the presence of the two Houses, only
assisted by tellers appointed by the
Houses q. o,,e..i;cal aids IN reading, ex-
aiming, and ascertainfng the votes
from the certificates. Individual MEM
beers, it is true, Influenced, not by a
study of the Constitution nor the pre-
cedents and practices under that in
strument, but by the sentiments engen-
dered in heated political struggles, have
at different times questioned the power
oleright of the President of the Senate
to canvass and declare the vote as a
/, function independent of the control of
! the two Houses, and have claimed for
the Houses the power to canvass and
reject the vote of a State, but in no case
were they sustained by q majority in
either House The acts and language
alone of the fathers of the Constitution
are decisive Of the meaning and pur-
pose of that instrument upon that point
their language and acts in Congress at
the early counts, as in the convention
which framed the Constitution. The
precedents and practice, as the law, all
| attest and sustain his right, the Con
stitution makes it his duty, and he can
mot evade the responsibility, even if he
!, would.
f As a matter Of fact the only objec-
z tioIat0 the count OF q vote prior to the
! adoption of the 22d joint rule, Except
! that to the vote of Wisconsin, in 1851
, by which it was proposed to disfran-
chise sovereign State through legal
4 fault involving neither fraud nor NAL
; Ipractiee,) were those by members of
j the House to indiana in 1917, to Mis-
souri, in 1921, and to Michigan III 1887,
on the ground in each case that the
State, at the date Of the appointment
of her electors, was mot State in the
: Union" 1t was an objection outside
andindependent of the matter OF count
> ling the votes. It did not touch or ques-
tion the duty of the President of the
Senate to count the electoral colleges,
nor assert any right in Congress to can
YasS or reject the vote of bona tide
State; but was a question, under the
Constitution, properly subject to the
decision of the two Houses in their
legislative capacity. Hence, under the
objection, the question was not wheth-
er, If States, their votes should be
COUNTED, but whether in the sense of
the Constitution they were States.
Only States could vote in the electoral
colleges. If Indiana, Missouri, and
Michigan were States their votes must
be counted; if not States, Of course
they had no right to vote; but whether
, they were States or not was question
distinct from and independent of that
of COUNTING the vote, transcending the
Simply ministerial and limited judicial
functions of the President of the SEN
ate; lit could only be determined when
raisfd by the two Houses in Congress
assembled.
\ INDIANA.
Inthe case of Indiana, in 1917, the
facts We're: On April 19, 1916, an act
was passed to enable the people of In
diam to form a State government, and
on june 10, 1916, in convention, they
adopted constitution. At the Presi
dental election in November following
the State appointed electors, who voted,
but 4 formal Joint resolution for the
admission of the State into the Union
was not approved until December II,
1916. Hence, Mr.. Taylor's objection
in tie House, that Indiana at the
date bf choosing electors "was not a
State in the Union" He argued
that because "the electors of Presi-
dent and Vice President having
been elected in Indiana before she was
declaled to be admitted into the Union
lby Csngress he thought her votes mol
more entitled to be counted than il
they Lad been received from Missouri
or any other Territory" In that he
was opposed by able men of all parties
by hessrs. Sheffey, Ptkin, Hendricks, I
and lngham. They maintained that
the only question for Congress to de-
eide vas, whether in framing the con.
stituton and organizing her State
government Indiana had complied
with the reauisitions of the enabling