Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1880-03-16

The apprehension that disputes may arise
over the count of the electoral votes, next Feb
ruary, unless some law or rule to regulate the
whole proceeding shall be enacted In advance,
is felt In Congress- as well as outside Of 1t, but
the democrats are apparently puzzled as to
what they ought to do. Any new law on this
subject would be regarded with suspicion and
probably, condemned as a partisan measure.
In the last Congress the Senate-then repub-
lican-paSSed bill to regulate the electoral
count, but 1t was permitted to die In committee
In the House. This created a suspicion among
republicans that their political opponents were
waiting until they should have majority in
both branches In order that they might
provide law to suit democratic interests.
The democrats, however, then claimed,
that that very bill was a Trojan horse
filled with ingenious republican schemes to
control the count In the interests Of the minori-
ty. This feeling Of party jealousy and suspicion
seems to have increased since then until every
move made In the direction of regulating the
count OF votes for President and Vice President
has come to be regarded as a scheme in the
interest Of one party or the other. This has led
to the serious consideration of the proposition
to revive the twenty second joint rule. The
democrats who favor this course do so upon the
ground that as the rule was originated and en-
forced in the presidential counts OF 1865, 1869
and 1873 by the republicans, the latter cannot
consistently object to 1t; that the revival of a
republican rule would relieve the democratic
majority of the imputation of seeking to
take any partisan advantage in the ap-
preaching count. This argument has had
a great deal OF weight and the indications are
that II any positive action is taken by the ma
jority ii will be to revive this rule. Those who
object to this plan have not yet suggested any
thing better, but the directors, as rule, con-
Sist of congressman who are In favor of simply
doing nothing at all in the premises. They ad-
wise that the count be left to the two houses,
as it was in 1877. There appears, though, to be
majority sentiment In favor of relieving the
public apprehension of dispute and disagree
ment by providing some definite system of
counting. In view of the probable revival Of
the twenty second joint rule, its provisions are
of considerable interest. 1t was adopted on
February 6, 1865, and requires the count to be
made on the second Wednesday in February,
succeeding the presidential election. The two
houses must meet In the hall Of the House of
Representatives at p. m; the president of the
Senate to occupy the chair and the speaker
to be provided with a chair immedi-
ately upon the left of the former.
One teller is appointed by the Senate and two
by the House, "to whom shall be handed as
they are opened by the president Of the Senate
the certificates Of the electoral votes" After
reading the certificates the tellers must make a
list of the votes as they appear, and when the
votes are counted the result is handed to the
president Of the Senate, who announces it,
(which announcement shall be deemed a suf-
f1cient declaration of the persons elected Presi-
dent and Vice President" and together with
the list of votes must be entered upon the
Journals of the two houses. When a question
arises Ia regard to the count of vote the Sem
ate must withdraw, and the question must be
submitted to each house for its decision sepa-
rately. No vote that is objected to can be
counted except by the concurrent vote of the
two houses. In other words: both houses must
agree that the vote of state is all right before
1t can be counted. The chief objection heard
from democratic sources so far to the rule, is
that it confers TOO much power upon the presi-
dent of the Senate, in making his announce
ment of the count "a sufficient declaration of
the persons elected"