Evening star., 1926-10-31
Fifty Years Ago
In The Star

The danger which will threaten
the country" says The Star of
w. 1, October %. 1876, Gin
WV ANoi0"N case of Il close vote
Possible. in the coming presi-
Dental election, ow-
ing to the defective system of count
ing the electoral vote provided by
the Constitution, must be painfully
realized by all thoughtful men. The
twenty y-second joint rule, now no
longer in operation, vicious as IT was,
did provide a certain system. but the
Constitution. which is now the only
guide, says in effect that the votes
shall be opened by the presiding Off
Ger and they shall then be counted.
BY whom they shall be counted 1t
fails to specify. But heretofore by
common consent the presiding Off
Ger of the Senate has virtually per-
formed that duty. The New York
Times, in commenting on the pos
sible danger attending disputed
election. says it should be remem-
the precise danger which now may
be ahead Of us. We have never seen
a time when a contest on this point
will he so complicated, will awaken
such bitter passions, or will be likely
to be more obstinate. Great close
neSS in the election would make a.
contest, if not probable, at least pos
sibIe II objection should be made
next February to the counting of 4
sufficient number of votes TO preveE-.
either of the candidates receiving
ma jority, there would instantly arise
pretensiOns, based on grounds of .,
certain plausibility. which no human
tribunal could decide, and which
would have to be disposed OF. if as
all, ny an incredible degree OF wis
dom and fOrbearance on both Sidei
But under the Constitution nothiit
whatever is said in regard to obJec;i
ing To the vote Of the State. IL simS
ply says: The vote shall be counted;
This would seem to be mandatory
The Times supposes, for instance.
that the vote of South Carolina is
objected to on the ground that United
States troops were in the State at,
the time of the election. The vote OF
New York might also be objected to
on the ground of extensive frauds
This process might go on until ne-
ther candidate had a majority OF all
the votes, when the election would
deyOlve on the House. This would
be the result under the twenty-sec
Ond joint rule; but this rule, 1t must be
remembered, is no longer in existence.
The provision of the Constitution
which takes the place of this rule
does say, however. that in case no
candidate Is found to have IL ma
ix...it 1f alI bA oil
the House shall Immediately proceed
to elect. This might be construed
by some to imply that the votes of
States objected To might be thrown
out, but the inference would hardly
be fair one.
1T is held by many and. with Il
good show of reason. that the pre-
siding officer of the Senate Is vested
under the Constitution with --the
power of counting such votes as he
pleases and of deciding all questions
of procedure as they arise. lie
might, therefore, rule out OF order all
objections to counting the vote of
certain States and. in cases where
there are two sets of returns, would
count whichever one he chose.
1T is quite probable that when
the two houses meet In Deeember
they will adopt some system, specific
in all it's details, by which the vote
can be counted. 1t is not unlikely
that the discussion on this impor-
tant subject viii be prolonged far
into the session. Should Hayes be
elected by small majority the Dem
ocrats would doubtless endeavor to
resuscitate rule %, while the Re
publicans would want new rule
which would preclude the possibility
of an election by the House Al any
rate. the matter must be adjusted
before the second Wednesday in
February when both houses meet to
count the YntA"