Year: 1876

Mr Mason Immediately declared Buchanan and
Breckinrdge elected BY majority OF Tho electors np.
pointed. Humphrey Marshall, Of Kentucky. protested
against the Of the President in declaring the re-
suit before the legality OF the Wisconsin vote was de-
that at some future time IL might be claimed as
precedent against the right OF the House TO
make such determina,ion- The Senate re-
tired, and long discussion ensued IN both
houses, IN which there was considerable diversity OF
opinion TO the legality OF the Wisconsin vote, but
not as TO the right OF the houses to determine tho
question. so decided was the feeling on the latter
proposition that Mr. Mason took occasion the next
day. while presiding tie Senate, TO make AN ex-
PLANTATION oil his action and TO disciaim The assertion
OF any such right IN the following ianguage:-"lhe
presiding officer, Ia his own judgment, believed then
las he believes now that James buchanan received
the greatest number Of votes, and that that number
was majority OF the whole number Of electors: not
undertaking to decide and not having decided whether
the vote OF the State of Wisconsin had been gwen TO
John c. Fremont power that the Chair utterly DIS
second session Thirty fourth Congress, p 6i9)


The action OF Mr. Mason Will hardly serve as pro-
cedent for Mr. Ferry in tho contemplated republican


The proceedings in connection with the counts OF
1865 1869 and 1873 interesting as the .hrce made
while the republican party mad control Of all tho
branches OF the government As in 1921, 1887 and
1857 all OF these the results were overwhelming
favor irrespective Of any disputed or Informal
votes that there no temptation ior either house
to be controlled by party bias


1t is singular Tact that, early as 1885, Louisiana
was the occasion OF a discussion in Congress this
very question. Republican electors had been voted Tor
in that portion OF the State which Was held by the
national army. Inc spceCHcs VI scNelui IcpupHcaH
senators notably OF Ben Wade, OF Ohio. taking most
earnest grounds against the use OF army In any
manner in connection with an election would furnish
APT ustrat for discussion onSsome features OF
this election. The result was tue adoption or u joint
resolution excluding from the count the votes OF any
States which had been In the rebellion. In addition 70
tins was also adopted the now famous twenty second
ioint rule. The latter adopted without debate in
Inc House but in the Senate the OF in
teresting discussion which tho power o. Congress
contest the count was explicitly affirmed; and Tho
theory of the power OF the Vice President to control 1t
was denounced with special carnestncss Just prior to


COUNT or 1857


tho two houses passed joint resolution concerning
the counting OF Georgia (the State not having been
admitted to representation in both housesl similar to
the Missouri. aud Mich gan resolutions above noted.
During the count the vote OF Louisiana objected
10 ON the ground that the election had been carried
by 'nmdation,n but tho objection was overrulcd by
both houses under the rule and the vote was counted
for Seymour and Blair When Georgia was called
General Butler objected to Its beng counted and the
two houses separated 10 consider the objection Tho
House OF Representatives voted to sustain it. but tho
Senate decided that under the JOINT resolution
above noted the objection was out of order ON the
return Of the Senate the President lScnaior
Wade ruled the objection out o order aud refused TO
entertain an appeal scene Of great disorder fol-
lowed Butler vchcmentiy demanded a hearing. but
the President persisted in ruling HIM out OF order and
the midst OF great uproar, in which Butler offered


resolution that the Senate have leave TO retire and
that JOINT convention be dissolved. and proclaimed
the right OF the House clear the hall OF ntcrlopers
the President declared the result IN accordance with
JOINT resolutions announced Grant and Coiiax elected
and then retired with the Senate to their own cham
ber. In The House resolution was at once intro
by Butler censuring the President OF the Senate
for violating. the privileges OF the House General
Butler made one of hts characteristic speeches. in
which he denounced the JOINT resolution as
uncon nstitutional and vivid terms described
the imminent peril 10 the country in the
event OF closely contested election, should the
rights of the House be allowed 10 be dsregarded by the
President OF the senate The successful candidates had
large majority that thus controversy degencratcd
INTO personal squabble between Butler and some Of
his republican rivals, and the whole matter al
lowed 10 drop IL will be observed that in this
the trouble arose not from any assertion the Presi
dent OF the Senate OF right IN himself to determine
count but from his insisting enforcing joint reso
luton OF the two houses


THE COUNT 1873


furnished Interesting precedents Poor Louisiana
again appears AS disputed State, this time with two
sets Of electors One certified TO by Governor
Warmoth whose signature was attcsted by the
Assistant Secretary OF State, and accom-
panied by the official certificate of the
count OF votes from the State Registrar; tho
other, or Grant electors, were certified To by the
Secretary Of State. Early in the session the Senate
Committee on Privileges and Elections had been in
sructed investigate the election OF electors{ and
several objections based that report were made TO
both rlcates and both were excluded by the votes
OF bol houses. When the Arkansas certificate
reached Senator Rice OF that State objected to the
vo,e being counted because 1.-The official returns in
said state made accordng to the laws OF said state
show persons certified to by the Secretary Of
State as elected elected electors ol Prcs-
dent and Vice President" TIE vote was excluded by
Senate Three votes from Georgia. cast for Horace
Greeley, were also excluded


thus ind from the records


Firsf-That prior 1865 tho count was mado by the
teers OF the two houses; that in instance did the
President OF the Senate exercise assert the right OF
controlling the count but that on the contrary IN
1857, Senator Mason expressly dscaimed such right


Sec0nd-That since the accession Of The republican
party to power Congress has n the most emphatic
manner asserted and enforced its control over the
count by laws but by joint rules and resolutions
und has thus passed upon the validity 0f individual
votes-gone behind the executive certificates and ex-
cluded several States from the count.


in the case OF Louisiana we have tho following spe-
cinc prccecents which cannot bo too carefully
noted


F.rsi-Thar the only electoral vote OF Louisiana
counted 1861 that given IN 1868 Tor the demo-
cratic nominees Seymour anu Blair, and that on that
occasion the objection OF 'intimldation'' was over
ruled by both republican houses.


ccond-That In 1872 the legality Of the electoral vote
was by the republican Senate and on the
facts disclosed by that investigation tho votes were
excluded no,w hstanding the Grant electors were GER
titled by the Secretary OF State and the State officers
declared elected by the same cauyassng board had
been installed in Office by the army by command OF
President Grant,


But we are told the twenty joint rule beng
no longer in force. there is power in Congress 10
control tho count and II all rests with the Vice Presi
dent Tho statement OF snch proposition Is It's own
refntation. JOINT rule in no conceivable sense
confer Congress the right TO control the electoral
count No legislative body by JOINT rule add to
its constitutional powers on tho contrary the con-
tnued regulation and enforcement OF power by rules
Is the strongest possible assertion Of the possession Of
the right Concedng. then, that the joint rule is no
longer in force, how IS the situation changed
Under the operation OF the rule either house could
the House could throw out Louisiana the
Senate could throw out Mississippi, and SO on Now,
we have IN disputed clection according 10 the pre-
cedents right in Congress TO control the count, yet
mode OF procedure agreed on between tho houses
TO regulate the exercise of that right


Should then the Louisiana Returning Board do
what Mr.. Wheeler. Mr. Evarts and other eminent
republicans have warned they may do and what at
the last election IL formally determined that they
did do, The republican precedents oil previous counts
point clearly the way In which the present House
prevent thc final successful consummation of so
great a crime. IL invite the senate 10 follow its
own precedent OF 1872, and unite in investigating the
facts should joint committee, composed OF repre-
sentative Of both parties, concur IN report tas
did the House committee OF 1870. II would carry
such moral weight would practically settle the
controversy II It should be Icund that the Hayes and
Wheeler electors were fairly entitled to their certin-
Gates thar would end tho matter But " tho commit
tee should find that the Canvassng Board In either
State acted irauduicnty or illegally las was found in
Louisiana in 1872 and 1871 then the rejection OF such
votes would bc the only course uulow ny the procc-
dent of 1S73l In this event Iilden and hendricks
would be elected by the Electoral College, unlcs the
House should take the that the rejected votes
were Included In the computation Of the whole num-
ber appointed,n In which case there would be
~. mn fnIv