El Paso herald. (El Paso, Tex.) 1901-1931, 1912-10-18

! which may arise that the fathers never
{ foresaw when they made the constitu-
( don, conditions which carry with Them
70 light 70 guide in their solution
! When w read that the North DAKOTA
: electors chosen at q Republican pri-
/ mary declare that il they are elected
: they VIII vote 1OT the Progressive can
didatc, and when We consider that this
/ viii force the electors supporting the
regular Republican ticket to secure
their nominations by petitions and run
as independents, II Will appear how
badly things may be mixed up
Justify Position.
The Progressive electors justify
their position by saying that they
were chosen by the progressive" Re
publicans Of North Dakota, and with
/ the intention that they should vote for
Theodore Roosevelt Tor president, on
4 the Republican ticket. They assert
that they feel that he was defrauded
of the nomination, and that his can
didacy on another ticket therefore
does not wipe out their obligation 70
vote for him. They admit that il they
failed to give the voters of the state
q bill OF particulars beforehand OF
their intentions il elected, they would
then be bound to vote for Taft, but de-
clare that having stated their position
they are perfectly justified in cOntinu-
ing on the ticket Of the party tnat
nominated them, and viii be justified
in voting for Roosevelt if they are
elected.
The Republicans answer that this is
not at all fair, that it is stealing the
livery Of heaven TO serve the devil
They assert that If the North Dakota
electors arc ProSressiyeS they have no
more right 10 so before the voters on
Republican ticket than the Republi-
cans would have of running on a Pro-
gressiTe ticket. They contend that 1t
is the very height Of absurdity for the
PrOgressives to masquerade as RepuO-
Iicans and force the Republicans 20
run as Independents.
The Missouri Tnngie.
The situation in Missouri is q little
different the electors nominated b.
to vote for Taft if their votes will
elect him, but not otherwise. The
Kansas situation is like the one in
North Dakota. But what is to be done
the matter to the state legislatures.
and as long as they are satisfied,
where does any other remedy lic2 Fur
thermOre there is not a word in the
constitution about party affiliations
or party pledges, so what can be done
about it2 The only time il becomes
any business Of the federal govern
mcnt is when state fails to settle
by legislative enactment the means OF
adjusting any disputes by election day,
or when such disputes are not settled
within six days Of the meeting OF the
electoral colleges. And even this is q
legislative enactment rather than q
constitutional provision.
The present campaign has demon
strated the need Of a change either
abOlishing electors entirely or dCfi-
nltely fixing their duties and response
Dllitles under our present system
Of presidential choice. Yet the expert
cnce OF the past holds out no hope that
either result can be brought about
through the amendment OF the cOnsti-
tutien
r-rbT-r, that has arfsar on n
least two occasions, and which may
arise in more serious form than here
JOfOTc. is that. of determining when
the house gets control OF a presiden-
tial election In 1887 there were mem
beTs who Insisted. while the WrGngle
over the vote Of Wisconsin was going
on, that there vas clearly case Of the
right of the nOuse to consider that the
electoral colleges had made no choice,
and therefore to proceed TO the choice
OF 4 president In 1876 e was again
claimed that SINCE the situation
seemed to warrant tine conclusion that
there vas no actual means provided (
for determining whether any candi-
date mad really occurred q majority OF [
the electoral vote in that mixed cleo Z
ton, il was time loI the house to I
proceed.
Houses Choice Wrong.
So far IS a real or fancied inhibi- /
ton against it might 20. there is moth +,
ing IN the constitution or tho law /.
which would prevent the house hold /
ing that the returns showed that no 3
choice was made. when there were /
doubtful returns and that il could 8
therefore refuse to have anything {
more to do with the senate and pro- !
coed to the election of a president OF ]
course such an arbitrary course as ]
this, IN the trying times OF an uncer- Z
tain presidential election. might pre- \
Clpitate the most serious trouble The !
choice by the house VIII always fall I
4 q
office, and upon a body which fire.
represents sentiments opposed 7
to the candidate strongest before the /
people.
Another question that may arise at
some time when there is 4 contested
election, is whether or not a state leg
lslaturc has right to change the man
ner o. appointing electors without the
assent Of the governor. suppose, for
instance. that state should have
Democratic governor ana a Republican
legislature, and the prospects OF the
election were that it would be too
close Tor party health. The lcSiSla-
ture, II the state were normally Dem
OcrattC, might decide 10 appoint Re
publican electors. This happened IN
the early dayc. one time without the
assent Of the OvernOr as to the man
ner of choice Should that question
arise now. congress probably would
have to acquiesce, or else break the
precedent established in 1899.
-At5dlll5 now are states 10 De prevented
from casting votes inhibited by .he con
5titution? That instrument requires
that no ClectOC shall hold & position Of
profit o. trust under the federal gov
eminent. Yet the repeated ignoring OF
This provision has made il practically |
lead letter Congress seems to hold
hat it is up to the states to determine
the qualifications of their electors and !
That if they do not keep out electors
Who have no constitutional right to I
vote, there is no other tribunal to do [
so. And yet this position is answered
)y the statement that by the same 1
Okcn il might be asserted that II the
states vote for president who is a
Crcigncr and ineligible to the presi- J
lential office under the constitution. :
here is no tribunal to prevent his ac-
.essiOn. If one elector who held q DO
5itiOn of profit and trust under the gov
srnment had had his vO;e rejected in
S16 there would after all have been a
lie, and the election would have taken
place in the house.
constitutional Requirements.
The constitutional convention seems
lever to have thought that any COM
llicatiOns could arise in the counting OF
electoral votes. 1t simply says that
he senate and house shall be in scs-
ion, provides for the OpeL-nE of the
certificates, and then says and the
-otes shall then be counted" The law
" 1887 practically settled the issue as I
Ia. -Hna. q