The Leavenworth weekly times. [volume] (Leavenworth, Kan.) 1870-1880, 1877-01-18


tionai convention. None of the lonies
when they became STATES wished its infiu-
ence weakened or destroyed. There were
two parties then a. now, national party
and Stats-rights party. The former wish
ed National Government, entirely dis
tinct from and independent of the States
and the President elected either BY Congress
or the people directly the latter party
wished the Chief Magistrate selected By the
the States, as such. So intense was the
feeling on this subject that at one time il
! threatened to destroy all hope Of uniting on
a form Of government. Neither side sue.
ceeded, or, rather, the result was q compro-
mise. The electors Tor the districts repre-
sented the people, tbs senatorial electors
the States, and yet the electors might be
voted for by the people, elected by the Leg.
lsiature, or appointed by the governor un-
der authority of law. The electoral col
ieges were State colleges. All supposed cor
ruptiDg Influences were avoided. The steps
taken to have the electoral vote poiled and
sent were supposed 10 be taken with great
care The President of the Senate received
opened and counted the vote, and his dec
laration Of the result was held as final and
sufficient. Counting or rejecting the votes
OF States was contingency never contem-
plated and for which Of course there was no
provision. Ii was rever intended that Con-
gress should make itself returning board
TO canvass State election, and determine
which States should or should not be count.
ed, because it was foreseen that, il they did
it would not be long before the Congression-
a! machinery would elect all Presidents.
Some little discretion WAS undoubtedly un-
derstood 10 vest in the President of the Sem
ate. As matter Of cours he would not rc-
eeive returns from everybody. He must be
satisfied they were the genuine returns. II
he was assisted by tellers he never asked
them and they never asked him whether
the package he handed them "a the vote OF
a cer,ain State was such vote or not.
Their acts were plain aud simple.
Neither is there word to countenance
the idea of joint convention with legisl.-
tive and judicial powers IN presence OF the
Senat. and House OF Representative"
Both bodies together and yet both bodies
distinct. The disposition to convert the
witness into a judge was to be expected.
The tendency in that direction is very .troDg
If the Constitution conferred the necessary
power On the President OF the Senate, it did
no, confer it on the House Shall the wit
ness call in FIRST raise a question and then
decide upon it? l. il safe,t1 give Congress
the power of receiving or eircting the votes
of States? Is it necessary that it should
furnish law or machinery to this end !
Is doing this 70 inevitable that the power
to snake ali laws which shall be necessary
and proper for carrying into execution the
foregoing powers" confers it on Congress
IL We accept that claim in it. bro ,dest sen e
there is nothing which Congress may not
do
/ am not insensible to q necessity which
NAV arise calling for Congressional interior
ence. / am equally impressed with the
danger OF innovations which may lead the
way to a complete overthrow OF the old
system. l do not know that precedents are
worth much in the face Of constitutional
provision, yet let Us beware Of the prece-
dents We make.
| What are the prededents made? In
1921 MIR. Livermore, of New Hampshire,
objected to the vote of Missouri because
Missouri was not a State Of the Unioo.
The Houses separated and vote to count
the vote of the State OF Missouri was laid
on the table. \ resolution had been
adopted that il the counting or emitting to
count the vote of the State of Missouri
would not change the result it should be
announced: with the vote of the state
| Missouri, so much, without the vote OF the
State of Missouri, SO much,' in either
event--is elected President.
In February, 1918, when Mr. Monroe was
elected President, Mr.. Taylor, a member
from New York, objected because "ihe
votes of the electors OF the State of Indiana
for President and Vice President had been
given prerious to the admission of the State
into the Union" When the Houses sep
arated they promptly voted to count Ia
diana, aud the vote is registered like the
other States.
In February, 1897, objection was made to
the State OF Michigan, and a resolution 20
announce the vote as in the case of Missouri
Was agreed 10 in joint resolution before the
two Houses met. The President of the
Senate declared the result: "Wi,h the
vote Of Michigan, Martin Van Buren, has
40 votes without it, 161 y AID as lis was
4 majority he was elected President
Al the election February, 1887, the ques-
ton of the inelisibility of electors came up.
From the resolution OF Mr.. Grundy
and the other records OF the transactions
it appears that the recond section
of the second article WAS supposed
not TO have been very rigidiy observed.
the Senate il appears that there we're FIVE
cases at that election Of electors who were
deputy pcstmesters or other Federal officers.
We quste from it:
"What ought to be done with them, and
whether any and what provision ought to
be made for securing the faithful obser-
vance in future OF that section Of the Consti-
tuition
Also:
"Thc committee cannot adopt the opin-
ion entertained by some that a single illegal
vote would vitiate the whole electoral vote
OF the college of electors in which it was
given, particularly in cases when the vote |
OF the whole college has been given for the |
same person."
And the following:
"Should a case occur in which it became |
necessary 10 ascertain and determine the |
qualifications of electors Of President and |
Nice-President OF the United States, the ]
important question would be presented, |
what tribunal would, under the Conslitu- |
tioD, be competent to decide? Whether |
the respective colleges of electors in the diff |
ierent States should decide upon the quail |
fcatIon OF their own members, or Congress |
should exercise the power, is a question |
which the committee are oil opinion ought |
to be settled by permanent provision on
the subject
1t WAS not permanently titled, however. |
Constitutional amendments relating TO the |
election Of President have been found diff |,
cult TO obtain The same difficulties that |
existed during the first convention exist |
still. In both cases when the election went |
TO the House 1t was followed by popular /
Clamor for amendments to the Constitution.
In the fret instance, when II was merely On |
voting on President and Vice-President |
separately, it was easily obtained, but when
it touched the essential points the amend
ment WAS lost.
At the election of Mr.. Buchanan, Febru-
airy, 1857, after the President pro tempoge
had declared the result, Mr.. Humphrey
Marshal, u member of the House, raised the
question "as to the right Of the President
OF the Senate pro tempore to determine
whether or not the State Of Wisconsin had
had counted il on his own yolition, and
having declared the result, adjourned the
meeting Of the two Houses.
The House separated. The tellers re-
ported to them that the electors, instead OF
meeting on the 3rd of December, the day
fixed by law under provision of the Consti-
tuition, they met and cast their vote on the
4th, the day after. On this repor, OF the
tellers no action was taken, the Senate evi-
IDENTIFY being disinclined to take action as to
the powers Of the Senate. This, too. was in
a case of violation Of act Of Congress on one
Of the two only points on which Congress
> xnrteiy has mower under the Cansfitu- |