Evening star., 1897-02-06
Probable Effect Of Objection to South
Cardinals Vote.
SENATOR HOAR GIVES HIS OPINION
The Matter is Fully Covered by Ex-
isting Law.
REPRESENTATIVES, VIEW s

ltcan member Of the House from South
Carolina, has announced his intention to
object to the counting of the electoral vote
OF South Carolina when the electoral count
by the two houses occurs on Wednesday.
inns announcement on his part is not re-
gardec as amounting to anything. 1t can
not make serious interruption of the pro-
ceedings of the count. If the protest is
made the two houses assembled together
to count the electoral votes will have to
separate to consider the protest, but this
will hardly occupy more than ten or fifteen
minutes. and there is hardly possibility
OF Its further interrupting the official count.
Mr.. Murray said today that he had not
consulted with the Speaker or the leaders
of the House on the subject before taking
the step. and that he had no understanding
OF cooperation of the republicans in Con-
gress.
The movement he said was one that
started In his own state, and his idea is
not that necessarily anything will be ac-
compllshed directly, but that 1t will call
attention to the situation IN South Caro-
lima. No Importance is attached to the
matter by the leading men in either house
of Congress. One feature Of the move
however. If Mr.. Murray does hot later
conclude 1t to be better to maintain 81
lence, is that if Congress decides that the
South Carolina votes should be counted.
thus determining the question raised as to
whether South Carolina mas republican
form of government, it will dispose Of the
principal question involved in the contests
made by republicans for the seats in the
next House, the same question being the
one at issue except In the case Of Mr.. Muir
ray himself, who has grounds for 9 con-
test.
Senator HOnr's Opinion.
Senator Hoar, chairman of the Senate
commit tee on in .a5 n
express opinion upon the question of
the effect of an objection to counting the
electoral vote of South Carolina. He said :
The whole matter is covered by the act
of February g. 1887. which prescribes very
clearly the method of proceeding in case
objection is made to the counting of the
vote of any particular state. The law pro-
vides for objections but It requires that
all objections shall be in writing clearly
setting forth their object. and without
argument, and that they shall be signed by
at least one senator, as well as at least one
representative. -
1T is further provided that no returns
shall be rejected from any state unless
there is more than one return. and when
there are more than one ii is directed that
those only shall be counted which shall
have been regularly given by the electors
wEo Shall have been chosen according to
law. Each state provides its own tribunal
FOR determining the result of its election
for presidential electors and when this
tribunal has made its return the governor
is required to certify the result of this
action. The Vice President lays all the pa
pers before the joint assembly
In case any objection is made which
renders 1t necessary for the houses to sep
arate to pass upon the question involved
the determination of the matter must rest
Upon the judgment Of the returning board
of the state
we could not so into the legality OF the
in fh.,
tempt to determine the legality of the ra
turning board OF any of them. All that
was settled by the electoral commission
ara 40 IS row to be found i'll the statutes"
Inc senator expressed the opinion that
IL put to test the law would be found
to be adequate and that "all would work
out right He declined to express in more
otrect os terms his opinion as to the policy
vi making such objection as Mr.. Murray
Is said to contemplate.
Views of Representatives.
1t is pointed out by leading members of
me House that any protest made by Mr.
Murray. even if supported by senator.
on such grounds must necessarily prove
abortlve and be nothing more than a stage
performance, because no contest has come
up from South Carolina. There are not
two sets of returns as there were In the
Hayes-Tilden contest of 1876, when there
lana and South Carolina. This lack of a
contest from the state of South Carolina,
Mr.. Hopkins of Illinois said made a dead
lock in counting the vote impossible be-
cause the act of 1897 is mandatory in di-
recting that the vote of states properly Ger
titled shall not be rejected.
Representative Mccall (Mass) the chair
man Of the House election committee
which had charge of the contests from
South Carolina in this Congress, expressed
surprise at Mr.. Murray's plan. He said:
1T hardly seems probable that the republi-
cans would care to delay or throw any COM
plications in the way of counting an cleo
toral vote which is to result in the election
OF the republican candidates. 1t is true
apparently, that the election laws and
constitution of South Carolina disbar a
large proportion of the population from
voting, but 1t seems to be the illiterate ones
who are disfranchised. There is ques-
ton in the minds of many intelligent men
whether this is not wise plan If consti-
tutionally enforced and carried out accord
ing to law.
"A full generation has passed since the
colored men were enfranchised, and ! 40
not know how long they can expect us to
coddle them and fight to secure their eiec-
toral rights. while they neglect to learn to
read and write | doubt whether the
party will sustain Mr.. Murray if his pro-
test is possible, on which point l cannot
speak. However. l have not read his pc
tition. and 1t may have merit and be based
on good grounds
Representative Strait of South Carolina
said: Il had expected that the republicans
of South Carolina might try to bring their
protest, which the state board of canvas
sers rejected before Congress. Its only
effect can be to delay the election of Nc
Kinley.
IF the Senate cared to carry partisan
ship to that point 1t might delay the count
beyond the 4th of March and make Olney
President for four years. But the whole
thing seems ridiculous to me-
Representative Stokes of South Carolina
said: "Murray's petition has nothing to
rest on So far as our state constitution is
concerned. it is based on the precedents
of the New England states We knew
THAT slch questions might irise when we
framed our constitution and had the con-
stitutions of the New England states be-
fore u.s.
Representative Talbert of South Caro-
lima said that none Of the democrats from
the state gave the matter any serious
thought.
-