Democratic Northwest. [volume] (Napoleon, Ohio) 1869-1894, 1881-03-03

0
Toneous, but erroneous in matter Of
vital importance, in the ascertainment
Of the person who had been elected by
the people Chief Magistrate Of this ma
tion.
Mr.. Trimble, Of Kentucky, also op-
posed the resolution. II anything was
due to State rights, the resolution
ought not to be adopted, as II would,
however immaterial in the present
case. be cited hereafter as precedent
as precedents we're becoming important
things in the public transactions. The
House might set an example by that
vote as ruinous in its consequences as
anv decision there could be made. 1t
was about to declare not what was the
true vote for President OF the United
States; but to state it alphabetically.
Suppose some member in joint meet
ing should ask the President of the
Senate how many votes were given; be
must answer in the words of the reso-
luton. and therefore would not state
the fact according to law. 1t was the
duty Of the two Houses to enunciate
the true state of the vote for President
and Vice President, and the proposed
enunciaton would not be the fact. He
concluded by saying that he would
rather the votes of Missouri were left
out.altogether, than adopt the course
pursued,
Mr.. Randolph said the gentleman
(Mr. Trimble) was mistaken on one
point. The Constitution of the United
States provides not that the person
having a majority of votes shall be
President, but a majority Of the votes
of the Electors appointed. Now he de-
sired to know whether the Electors of
Missouri were appointed or not?
Mr.. Floyd, of Virginia, opposed the
resolution. For years, he said, we
have been accumulating power until
there is scarcely any left in the Con-
stitution. If they had any power over
the vote Of Missouri it was when the
vote was first received, but no such
power existed. The vote of Indiana,
four years previous, was secured and
counted for President, when that State
was in nearly the same situation as
that of Missouri now. He protested
against this assumption of authority
on the part of Congress, and wished to
show his dlsappro cation of the resolu-
ton in the strongest manner. O..
Mr.. Clay defended his resolution
The Constitution required the two
Houses to assemble and perform the
highest duty that could devolve on a
public body-to ascertain who had
been elected by the people to admins
ter their national concerns. in the case
of votes coming forward which can not
be counted, the Constitution was 81
lent, but fortunately the end in this
case carried with it the means. The
two Houses we're called upon to enun-
ciate the votes for President and Vice
President. OF course they are called
upon to decide what are votes. 1t
being obvious that difficulty would
arise in the joint meeting concerning
the rights of Missouri, some gentlemen
thinking they ought to be counted, and
others dissenting from that opinion,
the Committee thought it best to pre-
vent all difficulty by waving the ques-
tion in the manner proposed, knowing
that it could not affect the result of the
election. AS to the condition of Mis-
souri,, he (Mr. Clay) thought her a
State, with perfect moral right to be
admitted into the Union, but kept out
for want of ceremonious act, which
was deemed by others necessary to en-
title her to admission. Though in his
(Mr. Clay's) opinion, Missouri was a
State in fact, yet not being so in form,
her votes could not be counted. The
question of her admission might come
up and be decided in this very shape,
for, if Congress allowed her to vote
for President or Vice. President, and
counted her votes it would be full
admission of the State into the Union,
but the Committee thought, as there
were other and usual modes OF count
ing State, it was better not to bring
up the question IN the discharge of this
solemn and indispensable duty, if but
to allow the counting to proceed, if
possible, without difficulty or embar-
rassment.
Mr.. Rhea, of Tennessee, said that
the Constitution had neither waving
nor elasticity, and would not bend to
circumstances or expediency. 1t was
the duty of Congress, under the Con-
stitution, to ascertain tie vote for
President, and was not competent to
decide such a question as that now pro.
posed.
Mr.. Trimblc said the very reason
urged for the adoption Of the resolu
ton was that which made lin oppose
it. 1t would be better to exclude the
vote of Missouri promptly and at once
than to set such an example.
The resolution was then passed yeas
80, nays 81. In the Joint Convention,
to count the votes, Missouri was OBJ
iected to by Mr.. Livermore, of New
Hampshire, and the Senators having
retired the debate again broke forth.
The Vice President in summing up
tha vote. acting under the Joint resOlu-