Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-01-22

the return shall not be excluded
except by the concurrent vote Of the
two houses. II the two houses admit
that single return it is held TO be con-
elusive. II the two houses agree as to
proper count, then the vote is counted
upon that single return. But suppose
that single return presents this ques-
ton? Suppose it appears from evil
dence on file that some Of the electors
claiming to be elected from disputed
State were ineligible, as they were
members Of Congress, or judges OF
court, or officers Of the United States,
and therefore ineligible for electoral
office, how would that question be de-
termined when the matter in dispute
did not 60 to the whole electoral ticket,
but only to part of it,"
Mr. Sherman cited again the case Of
Wisconsin, and inquired what would be
done with the vote Of that State under
the circumstances already stated, and
how the question should be determined
as to whether the vote should or should
/ not be counted. He presumed that un-
der the strict language of the bill the vote
of Wisconsin would be counted, be.
cause the two houses had not agreed ;
supposed in that case, where trouble
arose from an act OF Providence, that
the result might be right, but many
cases could be mentioned where
it would not be right. But
even if right to count it, how should it
be counted, and by whom should it be
counted, when the two houses dis
agreed? When the two houses agreed
they might be regarded as the best
Judges; but if they disagreed, why give
to the opinion Of one house more weight
than to the opinion of the other? Why
say that in case of disagreement the
vote shall be counted? Mr.. IIoar s theory
of the bill is that when State presents
itself, and by but one utterance declares
"this is my action" it shall be
counted as the constitutional action Of
the State unless both houses of Con-
agree to reject it. When there are two
voices, each purpOrtiDg to be-of course
not each actually, but each purporting
to be the declaration of State as to
what its action has been, it requires
the concurrence of the two houses to
reject one or accept the other.
Mr.. IIoar said he would not at this
time argue at length the provisions Of
the bill, out had interposed merely to
state its theory.
Mr.. Sherman said the explanation did
not meet the case he had put as to the
effect when the question in dispute was
not one affecting the whole vote Of a
State but the vote Of one ineligible
elector. The bill provided that in case
there was division oil opinion between
the two houses the vote should be
counted. But what vote: The whole
vote or part Of the vote? lie could see
that. if both houses agreed to reject the
vote, that was as good evidence as We
could have that it ought to be rejected :;
but even that was a very d,ngerou,
power that allowed Congress, which had
not been armed with any constitutional
power whatever over the le;toral sys-
Ten, to reject the vote Of every electOr
from every State without proper cause,
provided the two houses were in accord
on it. Mr.. Sherman didno believe that,
under the Constitution, Congress had
the power to give to either house the
night to exclude the vote of a State.
Congress had no right to 20 behind the
vote of State. The vote must be count
ed either for or against. This bill pro-
yided for something which the Consti-
tuition did not contemplate or provide
foi-namely, for the exclusion OF the
vote of a State upon the mandate
Of either house. He had no doubt Of
the power Of Congress to do all that
was necessary to regulate the manner of
the count; that was plainly given in the
Constitution, but with a proyiso that
the vote shall then be counted. The
history Of our electoral proceedings had
shown that in every case in which these
difficulties had arisen they had been
put aside as too difficult to be dealt
with. Now was the time to deal with
them. When this question had been
before Us in 1876 there was no law on
the subject; the joint rules had been
abandoned and the two houses could not
agree on a mode of counting. The Elec-
tOral-C ommission plan had then been
gotten up. lie had not believed in the
constitutionality Of that plan, but it
was wise solution of great diff
Guilty, and had operated well but he
would like to see pointed out to him a
provision Of the Constitution which
authorized Congress to provide such a
Commission. As one senator, after full
study of the question, Mr. Sherman
was willing to adopt the principle of
the act of 1866 and surrender the
superiority of senator in legislation
and 90 in on even terms with the men,
bers of the House in order to settle
questions in dispute that afforded no
other means Of adjustment. The vote
would then be counted.
Mir. Sherman then offered an amend
ment striking from the bill the clause
allowing either house to exclude the
vote, and providing that in case Of dis
agreement between the two houses the
question in dispute shall be submitted
to a joint convention Of both houses,
which joint convention " shall " imme-
diately, without debate, upon the roll
call of the respective houses, vote upon
the question or questions upon which
there has been such disagreement, and
the decision Of the majority Of the
members Of the joint convention pre-
sent shall be deemed final and con-
elusive, and the vote shall be counted &C
cordingly and be announced by the Pre-
sident 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 debate shall be allowed and no ques-
ton shall be put by the presiding OFF,
Ger, except to either house, on mo-
ton to withdraw and upon questions
upon which the two houses have disa-
greed as aforesaid.
Mr. Edmunds said that the PROPOSE
-. Al Ska=z.aa 49, a..