Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-11-19
cASB Of MARYLAND
How Electoral Vote May Be
Contested in Congress.
WISCONSIN PRECEDENT
IRREauLAR1TY OF PROCEDURES
CAUSED DISCUSSION In 1857.
Votes Then Not Important in Making
Majority for Election Of
President.


| OF Wisconsin, the result of which was tha'
their validity was questioned and ma
| jority was declared for the election OF Pres
ident Buchanan without including those
| votes. Then, as will prove the case when
the electoral votes are counted for Roose-
welt, there were enough votes to elect with
out including those Of the state whose pro-
ceedings were called into question.
In 1857 the electors were prevented by a
| snowstorm from assembling on the day
| prescribed by the act of Congress and they
met on the following day and voted. Be-
| cause of that irregular1ty many senator's
| and representatives were Of the opinion
that the vote was illegal and void. In the
| Wisconsin case the votes were for the
| minority candidates, Fremont and Dayton,
and the statement Of the vote received by
| Buchanan and Breckenridge was UNAFFECTED
| by these votes and showed majority IRE
| spective Of them.
| Counting Electoral Votes.
| The President of the Senate broke the
seals OF the envelope containing the votes
| of Wisconsin and passed them to the three
| tellers appointed to count them. One OF
these tellers represented the Senate and
| the other two the House Of Representatives.
The tellers entered the votes of Wisconsin
| on their list included them In the footing
| and reported the result to the presiding ON
| Ger. When the votes of Wisconsin were
reached objection was made. but the OBJ.
| tectors did not seem aware, OF the usage OF
moving for separation of the houses III
order to discuss and decide whether the
vote of Wisconsin should be counted, and
| the presiding officer moved that debate
was out of order in the joint meeting.
The tellers made their report orally and
| the presiding officer obeyed the concurrent
resolution. on the authority of which he
was acting, by announcing to the Two
| houses the state of the vote and the
4 ta11n q
| to make their report in writing when, to en-
able the debate to be carried on, motion
was made and carried that the Senate re
| tire to its own chamber. The joint meet
| ing of the Senate and House to count the
| electoral votes was being held In the hall
| Of the House Of Representatives.
President Of Senate Criticised.
When the Senate assembled in its own
| chamber the President of the Senate was
criticised because his action in presiding
| over the joint meeting was supposed to be
equivalent to declaration that the houses
Of Congress had no right to question the
validity of the vote Of Wisconsin. He de-
clared that his action had no such mean
| ing that under the concurrent resolution
| under which they We're acting notning
| to count the votes, and that. In order to
question their validity in debate, 1t was nee
essary to do exactly what was done-to al
meetings in which case each House could
discuss the question as they. saw fit. He
had merely, he said, announced the vote as
It was given to him by the tellers, the tell
ers themselves being the representatives OF
the two houses charged with the duty OF
counting the votes OF the electors.
The written report Of the tellers was In
tercepted before it was delivered by them.
SO that Is was still subject to discussion by
the two houses sitting separately That re-
port, 1t was seen. gave the aggregate votes
of Wisconsin. and stated those votes sep
arately with the dates when they were CIV
en-. The President pro tenn. of the Senate
further declared that his declaration as to
the votes that had been cast for each Of the
candidates did not Involve the validity or
invalidity of the vote of Wisconsin.
In further replying to criticisms of his &C
ton the presiding officer, who had declared
that Buchanan had received a majority OF
the votes, disclaimed that he had decided
anything as to the nature of the vote OF
the state Of Wisconsin.
An Explanation offered.
"If," he said in his explanation, "the re-
suit could have been affected by the COL
lateral fact reported by the tellers. that
the vote of the state of Wisconsin had been
given on day different from that prescribed
by law. the presiding officer would have con-
sidered it his duty to have reported. as the
state Of the vote, that whether a majority
of the whole electoral votes had been giveEs
to James BuCnanan would QepenQ on can
wasting the votes-a duty that he did not
sumo. But, inasmuch as 1t appeared clearly
from the state of the vote that whether the
vote of the state of Wisconsin was counted
or not, the result of the election remained
unaffected, he announced, as he considered
his duty required him to announce, that
James Buchanan had ma jority of all the
votes cast and that such majority was
majority of the whole number of the cleo
toral votes. He disclaims having assumed
on himself any authority to determine
whether that vote or any other vote was a
good or a bad vote.
case of 1857, when the envelope containing
the electoral vote of Maryland is laid be-
fore the President pro tenn. Of the Senate he
may open it and pass it to the tellers who
will count the vote. II he has before him a
second envelope purporting, to contain the
votes Of such electors he will pursue the
same course In relation to 1t. Precedents
of the Senate do not make 1t mandatory for
the presiding officer to break the seal and
open these envelopes. He may pass them
to the tellers to be opened. But the duty Of
counting the votes will devolve upon the
tellers alone.
In Reference to Maryland.
II the tellers discover that there are two
sets of votes for the state Of Maryland they
will make that fact known to the presiding
officer and he will repeat 1t to the two
houses as they sit in joint session That
will be the critical moment IL any one
wishes to criticise the validity of the votes
of the electors from Maryland. The fact
cannot be officially known to the two houses