Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1877-01-10
The Presidential Question.

ing the electoral votes and declaring the re-
suit; arguing from the language of that in
strument, as interpreted by its trainers and
confirmed by long usage, that it is the duty
of the President of the Senate to open and
count the votes, in the presence of the Sen
ate and House as witnesses, with the aid OF
tellers to record and foot up the votes as de-
livered by him. and from their footings to
declare the results. &C. w. W. has since
concusively confirmed this view, in my opin-
ion, by citing the following resolution of the
convention which framed the constitution,
adopted September 18th, 1877;
Resoiccd, That it is the opinion OF this conven-
ton, that as soon ms the convention of nine states
shall have ratified this constitution, the United
States in Congress assembled (the Congress Of the
Confederation should fix day on which the
electors should assemble to vote for the Presi-
dent, and the time and place for commencing pro-
ccedings under this constitution, That after such
publication the electors should be appointed, and
the Senators and Representatives elected. That
the electors should meet on the day fixed for the
election OF the President and should transmit
their votes, Certified signed, sealed and directed,
rs the constitution requires, to the secretary Of
the United States in Congress assembled; that the
Senators and Representatives should convene at
| the time and place assigned; that the Senators
should appoint II president of the Senate, for the
sole purpose of rccciciHg opening and counting
| he rotes for President; and that after lie shall
be chosen the Congress, together with the Presi-
| IA
this constitution.
1t thus appears that the convention, which
formed the constitution, declared that the
president of the Senate was to receive, open,
violate the very constitution which they had
Just completed or rather did they not in
terpret it precisely as they intended to have
everybody interpret it in all future time
&C. w. w" admits that " the first election
of President was held in pursuance of this
resolution = in other words, that the first
Congress interpreted article two of the con.
stitution precisely as did its trainers. lie
argues against this as an Interpretation be
cause the convention, being composed OF
men who knew something of the use of pre-
else language in constitution, could have
said what they meant as well in the consti
tuition as in the resolution" The answer is
that having said by their resolution pre-
cisely what they did mean by the words OF
the constitution, their Interpretation is OF
the highest authority and conclusive against
all other interpretations. Chancellor Kent
in commenting upon the second article OF
the constitution, said in 1886, that he pre-
sumed the President of the Senate was tc
open and count the votes. That was his in
ference from the words Of the constitution
not from precedents or the authority Of Other
interpreters. As against the claim of {
right in Congress to interfere with the ad
mission and counting of the votes, Charles
Pinckney, who was member of the consti
tutional convention, said in 1900 "to give
to Congress, even when assembled in conven
ton, right to reject or admit the votes O
states, would have been as gross and danger
Gus an absurdity as the trainers Of the con
stitution ever could have been guilty Of.
The truth of this is obvious from the fac
that the states only have the constitutional
right to elect whereas, if Congress car
admit or reject states at its will, it is Con
gress and not the states which control tn,
result. If Congress is excluded, then Mr.
Pinckney must have believed that the Pres
| 81 H., -, l., - BOO,
declare the result. Certainly there is no
body else who can constitutlonally do it.
Nevertheless it is true, as &C. w. W.
has shown, that objections have occasionally
been made in the joint meeting of botf
houses, to the counting of the votes of Ger
tain states. At the eighth election, the vote
of Indiana was objected to, on the grount
that she was not state-a case like that Of
Colorado if the House shall refuse admission
to her Representative; but the objection was
not sustained, and her vote was counted
Again, in the ninth election, objection was
made to Missouri for the same reason, anG
it was avoided by a compromise of Henry
Clay, that the result should be declared boil
with and without the vote of that state, the
result in either case being the same. Still
again at the eighteenth election, as to the vot,
of Wisconsin, of which &C. w. W." state,
that the certificate was delivered by the
President of the Senate to the tellers anC
included in the result-that is, counted, al
though the votes were not given on the day
fixed by law; which does not agree with the
newspaper report of the facts which / have
but in either case it was by the President, ant
not by either House, that the question wa!
decided. In 1865, Congress assumed, by tn,
twenty-second rule, to provide that an objec
ton by either House should reject the vot,
of state. " Assumed" without jot o
power from the constitution, and in opposi
ton to every precedent. On this point tn,
emphatic language of John Randolph il
1921 is pertinent;
lie could not recognize in this House or tn
other House singly or conformity, the power t
decide on the votes of any state lie maintaine
that the electoral college was rs Independent O
Congress as Congress of them, and we have N
right, said he to judge Of their proceed Nj
Randolph said he would rather see an int mum
or see no votes counted at all, than to sc. pru
ciple adopted which went to the very foundatio
on which the Presidential office rested Suppos
a case in which some gentleman of one House O
the other, should choose to turn up his nose at tn
vote OF some state and say that If 1t be so and
such person is elected; and if so and so, what
you-call-em is eected-did not everybody Sc
the absurdity Of such a proposition p Benton
AbridJement, rolume VII, page l13.
This was not only constitutional but
common sense view of the question. Tn
truth is, that when the constitution say
that each state shall appoint in such mar
ner as the legislature thereof may direct,
number Of electors, etc, and that such cleo
ors shall sign, seal and certify, and TRANSMIT
sealed to the President of the Senate, thei
votes, who shall open all the certificates, an
the votes shall then be counted" all powe
} of Congress, or of any other tribunal is e,
cluded. There may be frauds in an election
J but it is the duty of each state to proven
frauds, aud TO determine who shall cast thei
Presidential vote. There may be duplicat
certificates from state, and irregular cert
fcates, but as the constitution stands, N,