The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1877-01-03
COUNTING THE VOTE.

BUNTING THE VOTE.
EARLY CONGRESSIONAL ACTION RELATIVE
no THE ELECTORAL CoLLEGE-THE POW.
/ ERs OF coNGREss-oPINfoNs OF CHIEF.
JUSTICE MARSHALL, RANDOLPH, PINCK.
NEY, GALIATTN, AND OTHERS DUTIES
or THE vICE-PREsIDENT-AN INTEREST.
ING RESUME ON AN IMPORTANT TOPIC. {
Party spirit has never run higher in the
United States than during the period Inn.
mediately. anterior TO the election oil Mr.,
Jefferson, when tire Federal party was
slowly but surely sinking under the weight
OF q popular oflium provoked by the iniu-
fiicious measures OF John Adams. Yet 1t
was precisely at this iuncturc that the sup
porters OF his Administration brought for
ward plan in Congress for the purpose OF
settling certain disputed questions which
might arise in regard to the election OF
President. In the debate which arose upon
this plan tho relations OF the Electoral Col
lege to Congress, and the assumed right OF
the latter to pass judgment upon the law
sulness and admissibility OF the votes cast
by the former, We're passed In formal re-
view by some Of the ablest among our early
OF John Marshall, Robert Goodloe Harper,
Henry Lee c" Light Horse Harry, James
A. Bayard, Thomas Pinckney, Charles
Pinckney, Albert Gallatin, Nathaniel Ma.
con, John Randolph Of Roanoke, and 9TH
ers.
It has seemed that review Of the debate
which was then conducted upon this topic
could hardly fail to interest the reader,
especially rs the subject is likely to form
the staple OF much discussion in Congress
ut its present session. The following is o
careful compilation from the " ANNALS Of
Congress" for l799-1SG1, and from other
authentic sources, Of the proceedings had
at that time on this topic:
THE PRELIMINARY DEBATE.
During the first session OF the Sixth Con-
gress, on the 23d OF January, 1900, Mr..
James Ross, senator from Pennsylvania,
submitted the following resolution to the
consideration OF the Senate:
Resolred, That committee be appointed
to consider whether any, and what, proYl-
sions ought to be made by law for deciding
disputed elections OF President and Vice
President OF the United States, and for de-
termining the legality or illegaiity OF the
votes given for those officers in the different
States.
On motion to amend the resolution by
providing "that the committee be author
ICED to report by bill or otherwise" de-
bate sprang up which disclosed at once q
wide diversity of opinion upon the subject
in question. Mr.. John Brown, newly
appointed senator from Kentucky, express
ed the opinion "that this was subject on
which Congress had no right to legislate."
II anything was to be done in the premises
sit must be done by proposing an amend
ment to the Constitution
Mr.. Ross argued in favor Of the legisla-
ton proposed. He said: Suppose persons
should claim to be electors who had never
been properly appointed, should their vote
be received? Suppose they should vote for
person to be President who had not the
age required by the Constitution, or who
had not been long enough citizen resident
OF the United States, or for two persons
who were both citizens OF the same State.
Sucn cases might happen, and were very
likely to happen; and is there no'remedy !?
What situation would the country be in ii
such case was to happen! He thought 1t
their duty to make provision for 1t, and he
believed law was sufficient
Mr.. Charles Pinckney, q senator from
South Carolina, questioned the constitu-
tionality of such legislation. He remem-
bered very we'll that in the Federal Conyen-
ton, of which he had been a member, great
care was used to provide for the election OF
President of the United States indepen-
IDENTIFY OF Congress; to take the business as
far as possible out OF their hands. The
votes are to be given by electors appointed
for that express purpose, the electors are
to be appointed by each State, and the whole
direction as to the manner of their appoint
ment is given to the State Legislatures.
Nothing was more clear to him than that
Congress had no right to NEEDLE with it at
I'LL, as the whole was intrusted to the State
Legislatures. They must make provision
for all questions arising op the occasion.
Mr.. Samuel Dexter, Of Massachusetts,
Hdid not feel himself at ali in doubt as to
the right OF the Legislature (Congress) to
make such provisions on this subject as APP
peared to be necessary. It was directed by
the Constitution that President should be
appointed, that he should be Of not less t..ian
thirty-five years OF age, that he should have
been at least fourteen years citizen OF FL
resident within the United States, &c. The
proceedings in the election Of a President
may be defective in all these particulars, and
can it be supposed that there is no way to
come at them? The Constitution is not
silent on this head. Among the powers
given to Congress in the fifth section is this
"To pass all laws necessary and proper
for carrying into execution the foregoing
powers, and all other powers vested by this
Constitution in the Government Of the
United States, or in any department or Of
fcer thereof, The law now proposed
seems to be necessary to carry into effect
the powers OF appointing the President.
It is, therefore, clearly constitutional"
Mr.. .Liyermore, Of New Hampshire,
ssnever felt less doubt on any subject than
the one now under consideration. The
Constitution has given many directions as,
to the appointment of the President. Is it
possible that. gentlemen can suppose all
these may be violated and disregarded, and
yet that 1t is nobody's business to interpose
and make provision to prevent
tAir. Abraham Baldwin, of Georgia, qnes-
toned both the necessity and the constitu-
tionality Of such legislation. he held that
the electoral colleges in the respective States
were entitled to judge concerning the cleo
lions, returns, and qualifications OF their
members independently Of Congress; that
the Constitution presumed the legality and
OF their proceedings
equally with the legality and constitutional
ity OF the proceedings OF Congress, without
allowing to the latter any superiority or
control, over the former; that these colleges
authenticated their own acts; that their au-@
Identification was final, and, as such, was
binding on Congress. Hence he held that
the only possible question left open for the
OF Congress in the premises
was that the two houses, when met to-
gether to count the votes agreeably to the
Constitution, should judge of the authenti-
cation OF the act OF the electors, and should