National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1886-01-23


The matter involved q point more dan
gerous to the future of this country than
probably any otter. For twenty years IL
had been debated whether we could not, In
some better mode than the present. count
the electoral vote. This point referred to
- most important point-was without
law
The bill that had once or twice passed
the Senate, and been sent to the House of
rather with view TO gain
n conference than otherwise, was now be-
fore us again. The conference was already
defeated by the uuwillingness Of either
House to abate It's idea on this question.
The bill came before us again at the begin
ing OF an administration, when no party adj
vantage could he derived from our deci-
sion--when the Senate was clearly on one
side Of party politics, and the House OF
Representatives was clearly on the other
side Now, II ever, this matter should be
settled on some basis Of principle.
The critical points involved were two,
both 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 re.
turns should he opened by the presiding OFF,
would then be. and that the votes should
then lie counted. That mandatory pro-
vision was the only mandatory provision
on this subject In the constituton-tha
"the votes shall then be countcdn There
was no mode pointed out In the constitu-
tiUn 10y which the votes should or might be
countcd-no provision made us TO the set
Element Of any dispute relating to the le-
gality OF the votes of the eleCtOrf; whether
the electors had couformcl TO the 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 OfsDmc
Of the electors ton account OF the inelig-
bilty Of such elcctors) should or should not
be counted, orwhelhcr a state was In a con-
ditlOn TO have Its vote counted.
Mr. Sherman referred TO the fact that
snow storm had once interfercd with the
meeting Of the Wisconsin electors the day
appointed 10y law. All these matters, he
said, rested for their decision upon sin.
gle provision contained 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 Senate or the House should pass on the
question. All that 1t said was, that the
president Of the Senate, in the presence
Of the Senate and the House Of Representa-
tivcs would open the certificates, anu the
votes shall then be counted 1t was to he
presumed that the trainers of tao constitu.
lion did not foresee the difficulties that had
arisen since their time Oh this question OF
the count. The constitutional provision
cited proved unsatisfactory to the trainers
of the constitution, and they changed 1t
after the celebrated doubt whether Aaron
Burr or Thomas jefferson should be Presl-
dent. They said that this provision was
thwarted, and undertook to correct 1t.
They adopted a new provision, but that
new provision has presented 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 votes.
In the Missouri case, Missouri having under
taken to vote for President and Vice Presi-
dent before being admitted as a state the
question was presented whether the vote
should he 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 great snow storm from meeting at the
time and place appointed and could not,
therefore, vote according to the constitu-
ton, but met and voted next day and sent
their vote here to be counted, what hap
pCned? ~ remember said Mr.. Sherman,
''as well rs | remember the countenances
now before the scene Of riotand tumult
Of disorder and confusion that arose when
the question about Wisconsin came up, at
the time that Mr.. Buchanan was elected
President Of the United States. l never saw
the House Of Representatives In n condition
Of tumult and disorder more violent than
occurred then, because the president of the
Senate, Mr.. Mason, undertook to give con-
structiOn of this clause of the constitution,
which was at once met by violent cutlery, not
only from the members of the House, but of
the Senate, and led to the separation of the
two houses in confusion, and the meeting
Of the Senate in this chamber. The only
way that the difficulty could be solved at
that time was by passing resolution that
whether Wisconsin was counted or not the
result was the sane--that Buchanan was
elected. So In the 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 saying
that IN whatever way the question was
solved, the people had elected certain pCr-
son 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 IL had been
made public and generally known In the
country that the elections In the city of
New York had been carried by overwhelm-
"
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 change the result"
"Several times" Mr.. Sherman continued,
"that condition Of affairs existed, until
finally, in 1877, we came TO n point that did
thFpatnn nXigtnnpa m
war, or might have done SO under certain
circumstances, where the votes deposited
did change the result, where change even
to the extent OF one vote might have
changed the result. That was happily
averted by the continuance of the electoral
ommission-because cannot call 1t much
more than continuance, and | suppose
senators will not call 1t anything else II did
not support II at the timel-by which a
solution was found for this difficulty with
out strife. / think this Is n vital question
that we ought to decide. We ought to APP
proach II without regard to party alilliatlon,
and try, II we can, to decide this most dinl-
cult question of American politics.
''The objection | have to this bill under
consideration is that II does not solve any
of these questions. IL does not settle u
single one Of the questions that have arisen
in the past or that are likely TO arise In the
future. This bill makes q distinction be-
tween the returns of the votes of electors
from states where there is one return and
the votes from states where there are two
returns, or papers purporting TO be returns,
This is distinction without a difference,
because in any case Of dispute that might
arise the manufacturing or creating of two
returns is the easiest possible process TO
present the question involved
Mr.. Hoar. The theory of the bill Is that
when q state presents itself and, by but one
utterance, declares, "Ths is my actiOn,n 1t
shall be counted us the constitutional action
Of the state, unless both houses Of Congress
agree to reject IT, When there are two
voices, each purporting to be-of course not
each actually, but each purporting to be
the declaration of a state as to what It's
action has been, then it requires the con.