New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1881-01-13
TIE WIScONSIN PRECEDENT

So many illusions have been made TO the case
OF Wisconsin as aifoiding u precedent tor
counting the delayed electoral vote OF Georgia
that il il interesting, and may become instruc
tive, to see hog feeble the precedent Is. 1t
arose in the election OF 1S5G. In that year the
first Wednesday in December fell upon the
81. All the colleges met and voted on that
dly, except that OF Wisconsin. Her electors
started seasOnably, fully designing TO meet and
vote on the 3d-thcre Vas no itlea Of State
law. or of any intended delay-but an over
vhclming snowslorm, spoken OF in the reports
OF the time as terrific" "an act OF God"
"physcal mpossibity,' etc. prevented
their reaching the capital in season. On the
ith Thursday) they met and cast their five
votes fol- Fremont. They prepared certificate
in the usual form, showing OF course a meeting
Oh the 4th and on the back they irdorsed
memorandum certifying the Cause which pre-
vented them from meeting on the Sd.
Was this vote counted TO ascertain with
certainty precisely what disposal of it was
made. when the two houses of Congress met,
in February, 1857, Tor the counting Of the
Presidential vote, Is curlOusly difficult Even
the official reports of the proceedings appear TO
vary. Balancing them, and reading them in
the light OF personal explanations given IN the
memorable debate Of 1869 when the action Of
$50 was strongly drawn in question, the course
seems to have been this: The tellcrs tabulated
the ,Jtes and drafted q report saying substan-
TALLY that Buchanan had received la votes
and that Fremont had Notwithstanding
Wisconsin-1l4 votes; and that the five cleo
tors Of Wisconsin had voted on the 4th instead
of the Sd. But, as the subject had become in
yolved IN controversy which promised to be-
come heated, the tellers postponed signing the
report until the minds OF the two houses should
he known. One OF them read it and the Wee
President then announced the VOTE IN the same
terms. ThereupOn arose nm earnest debate,
which soon -andered from any consideration
of Wisconsns excuse and the propriety of
counting her vote, TO the higher and general
question, often preached since, whether power
is by the Constitution vested in the Vice-Prcsi-
dent to decide upon the admissbility of ques-
tionable vol, ). The three tellers probably per-
celved that the position they had implicitly
taken IN the draft report, as read that the
tellers report might treat doubted vote as
countable, was unacceptable to many at all
events, tho report which they ultimately signed
stood substantially thus: That Buchanan had
received ia votes that Fremont had received
100 votes; and that the five votes of WscOn-
sin had been cast on the 4th for Fremont.
The discussion OF the question OF who shall
decide upon the votes, which was begun in the
Joint meeting, was continued in the Senate and
House separately afterward. Ii did not reach
a formal decision certainly not ono upon lhe
question whether q delayed vote may be-
counted. Some significant remarks were mad c.
The Vice President dlsavowed deciding; he
said that the tellers had reported that Wiscon-
SIN voted for Ejemont, also that she voted on
the fth; and That he had simply announced
the facts. Senator Butler argued that counting
n vote cast afler the first Wednesday was I'M
proper, for it would enable large State to hold
her vote in reserve and decide the election after
she knew how other votes stood balanced.
Messrs. Orr, Crittenden, Thompson, Toucey, and
pugh concuned. Mcssrs. Haven, Washburn,
aud Campbell thought that rs the Wisconsin
electors had made every effort to meet Duuctu-
ally, their cote cast on the earliest day possible
ought to DO received rather than that the people
of the State should be DISTINGUISHED. But the
controversy was dropped, or lost in parlia
mentary cloud, apparently upon the view that
the real question to be decided in these counts
il who has the majority of votes, and that as
ia every aspect, Buchanan was elected, it was
useless to spend turHler time over the subject
But it cannot be said that in S57 the vote OF
Wisconsin was counted The utmost which can |
BE- claimed IS that the propriety of counting the
vote was officially and strongly asserted, and
was not decisiyely overruled.
There was nothing in the debate indicating !
that If tho Wisconsin electors hal deliberately |
delayed meeting beyond the proper day, pro-
posal to count their votes would have received
any support.
o. i L.