Watertown republican. [volume] (Watertown, Wis.) 1860-1906, 1880-06-23
HON. L. B, CASWELL ON THE
ELECTORAL COUNT.

count
Mr.. BICKNELL. I now yield ten
minutes to the gentleman from WiscOn-
sin, Mr.. CAsWELL.
MIR. CASWELL. [ thank the gentle
man for his courtesy in allowing me a
few moments on this question. Ofcourse
Icannot enter upon an argument in ten
minutes time, and [ will come directly to
the question before us.
We have been referred for precedents
to the twenty-second joint rule, adopted
in 1865, for which the republicans were
responsible. We have also been referred
to the electoral law of 1877, for which
both parties were responsible. Now | re-
gard both as departures from the Consti-
tuition in the Forty-fourth Congress
against the electoral bill. Ibelieved then
as earnestly,adI believe IIstand here to-day
that that bill was violation OF that great
| principle of the Constitution which pre-
serves to the people of the States the right
to select their President. Whatever L
may say upon a subject Cf so grave i'm
portance and character | say with the
greatest diffidence, because it affects a
principle which lies at the very tounda-
of our Government.
First of ALL desire to correct my fiendr
from Pennsylvania Mr.. WHITE when he
makes the important concession that the
act of John Langdon in opening and
counting the electoral vote on the first oc-
casion of counting that vote was prior to
the adoption of the Constitution. 1t was
immediately after it's adoption, and in
that fact lies volume of wisdom.
Mr.. WHITE, / think the gentleman
misunderstands me. | said it was before
the adoption of the amendment to the
| Constitution on this subject.
Mr. CASWELL. The amendment to
which the gentleman refers was almost a
repetition of that part relating to the open
| ing and counting the vote, which was al
ready in the Constitution, as originally
adopted After the adoption of the Con-
stitution, at the first electoral count which
followed, the Senate elected John Long
don President of the Senate, who was
member of the convention when framed
the Constitution and who understood its
provisions and its meaning, not only to
open the certificates, but to count the
electoral vote. The first step in that di-
rection, after the adoption of that Con-
stitution, was executed by John Longdon,
at time when the meaning of this sec
ton was well understood. What follow
ed? In 1900 bill of a similar nature
to this was before the Senate and House
of Representatives. The bill proposed
to depart in a manner similar to this
joint rule from the methods which had
been followed up to that time in counting
| ofo of+ hn
Senate thus far had opened the certificate
and counted the vote. The bill was dis
cussed at great length and for q long pc
riod of time, and finally felt between the
two Houses OF Congress.
Now, what followed was very import
ant as throwing light upon this subject.
This very section of the Constitution
which relates to the electoral count was
in 1903 amended; but SO far as the open
ing and counting of the electoral votes
were concerned the language in the
amendment which was adopted was iden-
tical with that in the original Constitu-
ton. This shows that the people had no
desire to change the present method as
interpreted by the Senate in the appoint
ing of President not only to open, but
!
uniform up to that time.
Now, what will we do with that provi-
sion of the Constitution which has been
referred to by my friend from Indiana
| Mr.. BROWNE that declares that the
powers not delegated to the United States
by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it
to the States, are reserved to the States or
to the people? Where in the Constitu-
ton is there expressed or implied any
authority to Congress to step forward at
any stage of the preceding and seize
upon these certificates and reject them?
The Constitution says that when the Pre-
sident of the Senate shall open these re-
turns they shall be connted. The votes
which the States send forward to the
President of the Senate shall be counted.
But this resolution says that Congress
may determine they shall not be count
ed.
Why, sir, it cannot be claimed that the
two Houses when assembled in joint con-
vention have any power or jurisdiction
over the subject. 1t cannot be claimed
that they can act and take proceedings
as joint body What, then, can they
do? It is urged that in their separate
legislative capacity, as they are assent bled
in their respective Chambers, they may
take up this subject and dispose Of it, may
determine whether the certificates of the
electors as sent forward by the States shall
be counted or rejected But, sir, where
is such jurisdiction conferred upon Con
gress in it's legislative capacity? No
member will pretend that there is one
word or syllable in the Constitution point
ing to delegation of power to Congress
to legislate upon this subject, Then
whence comes the authority, in view of
the provision of the Constitution that all
power now delegated to Congress or pro-
hibited to the States is reserved to the
states or to the States or the people?
Congress can take no jurisdiction not de-
legated to it by the Constition.
| The provision relating to the electoral
count may be defective; concede that
it is defective, but what is the remedy?
Where is it? Is it in Congress? Is it in
the executive? Is it in the judiciary?
| We NAV as we'll saw that the remedy lies