Middlebury register. (Middlebury, Vt.) 1886-1937, 1889-01-04
HOW THEY COUNT.
The War Caused Disputes and
Forced a Reform.
FROM LINCOLN TO HARRISON.


The Issue In 1s84-Louisiana and Tennes-
Tho Curious Complication Of 1873.
"Three Votes for Greeley The Crisis
of 1s76-77-The Law of 1ss7-settled
at Last.
The presidential election of 1864 occurred
under circumstances for which no provision
whatever had been made by the constitution
A civil war was raging Eleven states had
nominally withdrawn from the Union, but
one Of these states and very large sections Of
two others were within the lines of the ma
tional army, and these had assumed to act as
states within the Union. Accordingly the
subject was introduced in the house on the
prolonged debate began on a formal resolu-
ton offered by Mr.. Wilson, of Iowa, re-
jecting the votes of the eleven states included
in the proclamation of the president in 1861
declaring a state of war. Mr.. Mallory, of
Kentucky, suggested, and it was the old sug-
gestion, that the matter could not properly
come up until the two houses had met in
joint convention.
The result was that Mr. Wilson's resolution
was adopted The debate in the senate turned
upon the cases Of Louisiana, Arkansas and
Tennessee, and Mr.. Hale, of New Hampshire,
ably pointed out the dangers and the almost
criminal neglect of previous congresses, es-
pecially that of 1857. Senator Trumbull, of
Illinois, condensed the whole philosophy Of
constitutional construction into these SEN
tences
IA clause in the constitution declares that
congress shall have the authority to pass all
laws necessary and proper to carry into effect
every one Of the granted powers. The power
to count the votes is given by the constitu-
ton. The mode of doing it is not prescribed
by the constitution; hence it is clearly con-
stitutional and proper for congress to carry
into effect the granted powersof the consti-
tuition by passing laws to count the votes II
it were not so we should have revolution at
every presidential election"
This reasoning was substantially accepted,
and the general resolution excluding eleven
states was agreed to by 20 to 10. On the sth
Of February, 1865, the joint convention sat
as before. The vice president opened the
certificates and handed them to the tellers.
They counted, handed up the lists and the
vice president announced each state in its
order and then the totals. Louisiana and
Tennessee were suggested by members, but
no action was taken. The result was: For
Lincoln, 2l2; for Mcclellan, 81.
In 1869 still more serious question arose,
as some of the southern states had been re-
stored to full standing in the Union and others
had not, and in February, 1865, the twenty
second joint rule of the two houses had been
adopted us follows:
"1f, upon the reading of any such certif-
Gates by the tellers, any question shall arise
in regard to counting the votes therein certi-
fed, the same having been stated by the pre-
siding officer, the senate shall thereupon
withdrawals rest providing as in the
twenty-third rule, above quoted.
When the convention of the two houses
met, Feb. 10, 1869, a somewhat disorderly
scene occurred and the senate retired. They
debated separately and reconvened. There
was still some disorder, but the result was
that the votes of Virginia and Texas were
rejected outright and the vice president
somewhat arbitrarily, rs members Of the
house charged, announced the vote OF
Georgia alternately thus: For Grant, ga
for Seymour, 80 with the vote Of Georgia
or II without. Thus the case of Georgia in
that instance was settled contrary to joint
rule %. No sooner had the senate retired
than the Hon. Benjamin Butter opened de-
bate on proposition practically censurine
the senate, and this debate was continued fol-
some time with great heat and acrimony
Mr.. Butler charged that the vice president
had overridden and insulted the house. Mr.
Shellabarger, Of Ohio, made an elaborate
and very able argument that by the const
tuition the vice president had a right to de
eide, but he admitted that the power was
dangerous, and that the constitution should
be changed and a better method of deciding
the disputed votes adopted. Mr.. Boutwell,
OF Massachusetts, urged immediate action
but, as on the previous occasion, the same
plea prevailed that it made no difference
whether the vote of the state was counted OF
not, and it was again postponed to a more
convenient S ason.
In 1872 there were several peculiar compli
cations. Horace Greeley, the Democratic
candidate, having died, and the state OF
Georgia having cast three of her electoral
votes for him, it was decided that votes fol
the dead could not be counted There were
turns from Louisiana-an ominous forecast
of what was to come 1t was then acknowl
edged in both houses that there was no tri
bunal in state or nation to try the right OF
an elector. Amy other officer in the United
States could be cited by quo warranto
even the president osthe United States, ii
was claimed, might have his title thus ques
toned and tried, but for an elector there
was no court of last resort Mr.. Freling.
huysen, of New Jersey, suggested that con
gress ought to vest that power in the supreme
court.
On the 18th of February, 1878, the two
houses met, the vice president presiding
Questions were raised. They separated under
hetwenty second joint rule, met, raised other
questions and separated again, both houses
arguing at some length and with consider.
able acrimony The final result was that
the votes of Arkansas and Louisiana were
excluded outright, as were the Greeley votes
of Georgia The result was: For Ulysses
Grant, 2S6, for Greeley, 8, excluded; for B.
Gratz Brown, Is; for Thomas A. Hendricks
AZ; for c. J, jenkins, of Georgia, g, and fol-
-