St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1886-01-22
THE ELECTORAL VOTES.
Senators Discuss the Presidential
Count Bill at Length.


troduced an enabling act in the senate for
the admission of Dakota as a whole Mr.
Van Wyck introduced a bill to prevent the
demOnetiZatiOn of American coin by certain
persons in the United States, maintaining
that conspiracy existed on the part of
capital to demOnetiZe silver. Capital was
arTayiEg itself against the laws and the
prosperity of the people, against the inter
eSts Of the masses and of labor. The bill
was laid on the table at Mr.. Van Wyck's
request. The first bill was that to divide
part of the Sioux reservation in Dakota
into a separate reservation. and to secure
the REIMBURSEMENT OF the Indian title TO the
remainder. The bill went over and the
electoral count bill came up. Mr.. Sherman
took the floor and said:
When the senate is clearly on one side of
party politics, and the house clearly on the
other, now, if ever, the matter should be set
tied on some basis of principle. The only
mandatory provision on this subject in the
constitution is that the returns shall he
opened by the presiding officer of the senate,
and that the votes shall then be counted. No
provision has been made as the settlement
of any dispute relating TO the legality of the
votes of the electors. All that IS said is that
that the president, in the presence of the SEN
ate and the house of representatives,, shall
open the certificates, and the votes
SHALL THEN BE COUNTED.
The objection have to this bill under con-
sideration is that il does not settle a single
one OF the questions that have arisen in the
past or that are likely TO arise In the future.
The bill makes q distinction between the re-
turns OF the votes of electors from states
where there Is one return and the vote from
states where there are two returns or papers
purporting TO be returns. This is distinction
without a difference. because, in any case of
a
or creating of two returns is the easiest pos
sIble process by which 10 present the ques-
ton involved. If there be but one return
then the bill provides that the return shall
not be excluded except by the concurrent
vote of the two houses. If the two houses
admit the single return il Is held to be con-
elusive. If the two houses agree as to proper
count, then the vote is counted upon that sim
gle return, but suppose that a single return
presents this question. Suppose it appears
from evidence ON file that some of the elect
ors claiming TO be elected from a disputed
state were ineligible, as that they were men,
bers of congress-, or officers of courts, or Off
GERS of the United States, and there
fore ineligible for the electoral Office,
now would that question be determined where
the matter in dispute did not go to the whole
electoral ticket, but only to a part OF il?
Many cases could be mentioned where it
would not be right to count the vote of a
state. but even If right to count IL, how
should il be counted, and by whom should it
be counted where the two houses disagreed?
Where the two houses agree, they might be
regarded the best judges, but IL they disa-
greed why give TO the opinion of one house
more weight than to the opinion of the other?
Why say that
INA CASE OF DISAGREEMENT
the votes shall be counted? The bill provided
that, in case there is division of opinion
between the two houses, the vote shall be
Ill.
part of the vote? / can see that, If both
houses agree to reject the vote, it is as
good evidence as we could have that it ought
10 be rejected; but even that is a very dam
gerous power. That allows congress, which
had not been armed with any constitutional
power. however, over the electoral system, to
reject the vote of every elector from every
state, without proper cause, provided the
two houses are in accord omit.
Mr.. Sherman then offered an amend
ment-
Striking from the bill the clause allowing
either house 10 exclude a vote, and providing
that, in case of disagreement between the two
houses, the question in dispute shall be sub
mitted TO a joint convention of both houses,
which joint convention shall Immediately,
without debate. upon the roll-call of the re-
spective houses. vote upon the question or
questions upon which there has been such
disagreement, and the decision of the major
ity of the members OF the joint convention
present shall be deemed final and conclusive,
and the vote shall be counted accordingly
and be announced by the president of the
senate; that while the two houses shall be in
meeting as provided in this act, the president
of the senate shall have power to preserve
order, and no debates shall be allowed
and no question shall be put by the presiding
officer except to either house. on a motion to
withdraw, and upon questions upon which
the two house have disagreed as aforesaid
Mr.. Edmunds strongly opposed the amend
ment, and Mr.. Evarts favored it as offering
an opportunity to the senate to overcome
the majority of the house by the vote of the
united body. The senate then adjourned
till Monday.