Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-01-22
THE ELECTORAL COUNT.
SENATOR SHERKANS SPEECH
His 0bicciions TO the Biii-The Electoral Com
mission Interesting Points.
fBy telegraph 10 the Dispatch. |

mission Interesting Points.
tBy telegraph 10 the Dispatch.l
WASHINGTON, ID. O., January 2l.--
In the course Of his remarks on the
electoral-count bill Mr.. Sherman said
the bill that had once or twice passed
the Senate and been sent to the House
of Representatives, rather with the view
to gain a conference than otherwise,
was now before the Senate again. The
conference was already defeated by
the unwillingness Of either house to
abate its idea on this question. The
bill came before the Senate again
at the beginning Of an Administration,
when no party advantage could be de-
rived from our decision; when the SEN
ate was clearly on one side OF party
politics and the House of Representa-
tiyes was clearly on the other side.
Now, if ever, this matter should be set
tied on some basis of principle. In
most of its features, Sherman continued,
the bill was not objectionable to any
one. The critical points involved were
presented by the fourth section Of
the bill. That section provided
that in case there was but one return
from State the two houses should
meet according to the provisions of the
Constitution; that the returns should
be opened by the presiding officer Of
the Senate, in whose custody they
would then be, and that the votes should
then be counted. That mandatory pro-
vision was the only mandatory pro-
vision on this subject in the Constitu-
ton" that the votes shall then be
counted" There was no mode point
ed out in the Constitution by
which the votes should or might
be counted {; no provision made
as to the settlement of any dispute re-
lating to the legality of the votes Of the
Observation-Disclosures electors had con-
formed to law or Constitution whether
one set or another set of electors had
been elected. No provision pointing
out any authority, any person, or body
to decide which Of two sets Of returns
should be counted whether the votes
Of some Of the electors ION account Of
ineligibility of such electors) should or
should not be counted whether State
was in a condition to have its vote
counted.
Mr.. Sherman referred to the fact that
a snow storm had once interfered with
the meeting of the Wisconsin electors.
All these matters, he said, rested for
their decision upon single provision con-
tanned in the twelfth amendment to the
Constitution. There was, however, no
declaration that the President Of the
Senate. who opened the returns, should
count the electoral votes, or that the
House or Senate should pass on
the question. All that it said
was that the President Of the Senate in
the presence Of the Senate aud House
Of Representatives would open the GER
tiGca,es. land the votes shall then be
counted" 1t was to be presumed that
the trainers Of the Constitution did not
fOresee the difficulties that had arisen
since their time. On this question Of
count the constitutional provision cited
proved unsatisfactory to the trainers Of
the Constitution, and they changed it
after the celebrated doubt whether
Aaron Burr or Thomas jefferson should
be President. They saw that this pro-
vision was thwarted, and undertook to
correct it. They adopted a new pro-
vision. but that new provision has pre-
scented many of the same difficulties
that occurred under the old, and to this
day Congress has never been able to
solve any Of them. Since that time
there had arisen eleven cases Of dispute
as to the electoral vote. In the Mis-
souri, case, Missouri having undertaken
to vote for President and Vice President
before being admitted as a State, the
question was presented whether its
vote should be counted. The difficulty
was got over by ignoring it, because it
would make no difference in the result.
Again. when the Wisconsin electors had
been prevented by a great snow-storm
from meeting at the time and place aD-
pointed, and could not, therefore, vote
according to the Constitution, but met
and voted the next day and sent their
votes here to be counted, what hap
pened
II remember" said Mr.. Sherman.
las we'll as ! remember cOuntenances
now before me, the scene Of riot
and tumult, of disorder and confusion,
that arose when the question about
Wisconsin came up. At the time that
buchanan was elected President of the
United States never saw the House Of
Representatives in a condition Of tumult
and disorder more violent than occurred
then, because the President Of the
Senate, Mr.. Mason, undertook to
give construction to this clause Of
the Constitution. which was at once
met by violent cutlery, not only from
members of the House, but of the
Senate, and led to the separation Of the
two houses in confusion and the meet
ing of the Senate in this chamber. The
only way that difficulty could be solved
at that time was by passing resolution
that whether Winconsin was counted or
not the result was the same-that
Buchanan was elected. So in many
cases that have occurred since
that time, where the votes of several
States were in dispute, especially
after the reconstruction period, the same
difficulty arose and was settled by say
ing that in whatever way the question
was solved the people had elected a
certain person to be President Of the
United States. In my judgment, if in
1869 the election of President Grant
had depended on the vote Of the State
Of New York, after it had been made
public and generally known in the coun-
try that the election in the city of New
York had been carried by overwhelm-
ing fraud, do not believe the people
of the United States would have been
satisfied with any result that depended
upon the vote of the State OF New
York but then, again, fortunately for
the country, we were able to avoid the
difficulty by saying that however New
York might be counted it would not
-