Year: 1876

In 1866 Congress adopted joint rule
that if any member Of either House
should object to the certificate Of the re-
suit of the Presidential election In any
State, both Houses should withdraw and
vote upon the question without delay,
and unless both Houses concurred, the
certificate should be rejected. But this
rule has been repealed, and there is now
no provision for the settlement Of such
question. should it be raised. The re-
suit of the present election is 30 close,
and the probability Of some such ques.
ticn is so evident, that the first duty OF
Congress upon re.assembing will be to
make provision for the contingency.
The differing political sentiment OF the
Houses may make such action more diff
ficult, but it should not seriously embar-
rass it. At present, if one House should
protest against the result as declared,
and withdraw, the validity OF the cleo
tion that might be announced would be
questioned. The Constitution provides
that the president of the Senate shall
open the certificates. count the votes in
the presence of the Senate and the
House, and declare the result. This
seems to imply the assent and acqules-
cence of both Houses, and the protest
and non-concurrence OF either might
lead to confusion and trouble.


The rule of 1866 certainly exposed the
country to some risks. If, for instance,
the result in any election had depended
upon New York, and objection were
made upon the ground Of fraud, but
really for a mere party purpose, and it
were sustained by party majority IN
either House, the temptation would be
very strong to raise similar objection
in the other House upon similar party
grounds, and to sustain it in the same
way and for the same purpose. The re
ception of the whole electoral vote was
.hus exposed to the whim of party
spirit. It is assumed, however, by our
system of government, that there are
good sense and patriotism enough in
the American people to curb the perils
of unbridled party spirit, and the action
of Congress, we have no doubt, will
Justify that faith. Some method might
be suggested under which, if objection
be made to any State return, the ground
should b. stated, and the question re-
ferred to committee of equal numbers
from both Houses. They should make
a speedy report, and, in case Of dis
agreement, they might call in the chief
Justice as arbitrator. The decision
should be final. Any plan that could
be devi ed would be open to objection.
But friction and inconvenience and COM
promise would be very much better
than any failure to determine.


The problem is not in itself difficult.
It's solution demands only honest pa
triotism and loyalty in Congress; and if
they do not exist there, the country is
much more unfortunate than we be-
lieve. It is foolish for either party to
insist at this time that the other is not
willing 20 abide by the decision Of the
majority. If, for instance, the result OF
the election depends upon the vote of
Louisiai:a, the sole question is, For
whom were the majority of the votes in
that State cast Fraud can be assumed
upon either side, aud the assumption
proves nothing. Tho previous action
of the present returning board has in
deed laid it under suspicion. But q
careful survey of the canvass OF votes by
prominent representatives will satisfy
the country. The declarations OF the
President were most admirable, and
worthy Of the chief magistrate. ALI that
honorable Republicans and emocrats
wish to know is the fact as it is.-Har-
per's Weekly.