toral vote for President and Vice President
of the United States. The President of the
Senate cannot do it; the Senate cannot do
it; the House cannot. Who can? The
followers of Tilden answer, we will consent
to a scheme for so doing, but only upon
condition that we may at pleasure count
him in or so confuse and confound the elec-
toral vote as to enable the House of Repre-
sentatives to elect him.

LET US HAVE NO BARGAINS.

In the name of the authors of the Consti-
tution, whose intelligence is thus questioned
and insulted-in the interest of justice and
of common sense, and of all good citizens,
I denounce this doctrine as mischievous,
unconstitutional, and revolutionary. Bar-
gains based upon such pretensions, to ac-
complish such a purpose, statesmen, Sena-
tors, Representatives, will, I trust, decline
to make. Already the Constitution has
been, as I believe, disregarded, and great
national interests imperiled, by the adop-
tion of the twenty-second joint rule-a mis-
chievous precedent established in 1865--not
merely to secure a count of the electoral
votes by the action of the two Houses, or
by the several action of either, but to en-
able either House to insist upon the rejec-
tion of the vote of certain rebellious States,
upon the ground that they had not resumed
such relations in the Union as entitled them
to cast electoral votes for President and
Vice President of the United States. This
was not legislation, and was a rule unwisely
adopted. Let those who insist that no con-
stitutional mode has been provided by

which to count the votes of States con-
fessedly within the Union, and that none
will be agreed to except upon condition of
consenting to a plan for the election of Mr.
Tilden, be told that the grave reproach sug-
gested does not rest upon the Constitution
or its authors, and that treasonable bargains
cannot be forced by threats, or achieved by
unlawful contrivances, but that in the ab-
sence of legislation on the subject, or of any
fair arrangement which does not give the
election of President to the House, the
President of the Senate (in the language of
Chancellor Kent before cited) counts the
votes and determines the result, and that
the two Houses are present only as specta-
tors to witness the fairness and accuracy of

the transaction."

THE PRECEDENTS.

66

Let us now briefly inquire upon what precedents that illustrious Judge based his conclusion-independent of the construction which may be fairly given to the Constitution itself.

When that instrument was submitted to the States for adoption by the convention

| which framed it, one of the resolutions adopted by that convention, and which accompanied the Constitution as proposed, was that as soon as the conventions of nine States should have ratified the Constitution, Congress should fix a day for the appointment of electors, and a day on which they should assemble to vote for President; and that upon so voting, they should transmit their votes, sealed, &c., to the Secretary of the United States, (there being then no President of the Senate,) and that the Senate and House of Representatives should convene, and that "the Senators should appoint a President of the Senate for the sole purpose of receiving, opening, and counting the vote for President."

On the 6th of April, 1789, "the Senate proceeded to ballot for the choice of a President for the sole purpose of opening and counting the votes for President of the United States," and John Langdon was

elected.

Now this was the work of the authors of the Constitution. The convention which framed it recommended that a President of the Senate should be appointed "for the sole purpose of receiving, opening, and counting the electoral votes," and he was so chosen. That was to be, and was, his only function. Now, if it had been intended by the framers of that enactment that the President of the Senate was not to count the votes, but that such duty was to devolve upon the Senate and House if they could agree-and upon no mortal or idle ceremony of appointing a President of tribunal if they could not-doubtless the the Senate solely for such a purpose would have been dispensed with. Probably one Would not have been appointed merely to could as well have been done by a clerk or break the seals of the certificates, as that porter.

Mr. Langdon, after the two Houses met, declared that 66 he in their presence had opened and counted the votes of the elec tors for President and Vice President of the United States," and that George Washington was unanimously elected President, and that John Adams was duly elected Vice President. Thereupon, a committee of of the election, to be signed by Mr. Langfour was appointed to prepare a certificate don, and that framed and by him signed stated that he "did, in the presence of the said Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and count all the votes of the electors," &c.

Such was the practical construction put by the framers of the Constitution upon the clause under consideration, and it would seem to be decisive as to its true meaning.

In substantial harmony with this practi

THE QUESTION OF THE HOR

A textum, te vitia untínser therezita mere coated won many cezione. the parvatars of which, it la farly nere sary unstain. The Senate and Houe wee in the habit of appointing tellers to make viare of the vota for President and Vie President of the United States as they shall be declared." Such was the form adopted in the appointment of the persons up to and in 1928, in 1888, in 1841. in 1846, and 1852. Their duty was to make these liste enbetantially in aid of the Prest dent of the Senate; for it was never, down to the period last named, supposed or pretended that they had any power whatever to count the votes. They were by the terms of their appointment to make a list of the votes " as they shall be declared," and they were to be declared-not by the tellers, but by the President of the Senate. It was, of course, desirable that each House should preserve among its archives one of these lists, as a record of what it bad witnessed. From time to time, objections to the counting of the electoral votes were made by members of the Senate or House of Representatives, but in three of the most notable instances the objections were to counting votes of States upon the ground that they had not been admitted to the Union at the time their electoral vote was cast. In no instance, it is believed, was the general right of the President of the Senate to count the electoral vote actually questioned in practice, although in several instances the question was raised whether some particular vote should or should not be counted, and in debate, both Senators and Representatives have, of late years, asserted the right of the two Houses to count. Whether this is to overthrow the authority of the early practice to which I have referred should be carefully considered, as well as the peril and inconvenience of the absence of any Inwful means of counting the electoral vote. When objections have been made by members of either House to counting any particular vote, they have never conferred together or listened to debate upon the subjeet; and upon no occasion, that I am nware of, was it insisted or suggested that the two Пonses could act jointly in convention for the purpose of counting the votes, or considering any question which might

arise.

In 1857, when Mr. Buchanan was elected, tellers were appointed as before, "to make n list of the votes as they shall be declared," and for the first time, as I believe, in their history, they reported that they have counted the votes of all the States cast for President and Vice President," &c., and Mr. Buchanan was declared elected.

In the history of the Govemment these I mem I omen that for the first time felleze shoqli have reported that they had counted the electoral votes.

svcnted it. the rebellion was by him and During the term of the President ds his party nourished mail is finally ripened andeaminated. Upon the counting of the votes in 1961, the President of the Senate declared Mr. Lincoln elected Prest leartellers having been as usual appointed by the two Houses to make a list of the votes declared, as before stated. by the President as they shall be declared." and they were of the Senate.

Houses, already mentioned. was made in The twenty-second joint rule of the two February, 1865, by which they agreed that should be counted, except by the concurno electoral vote objected to by either rent votes of the two. The real purpose of the rule was, as I have before stated, to prevent States whose relations with the Union were not constitutionally established from voting for President and Vice President. were in pursuit of the same object; and, It was made when both Houses although the same end might doubtless have been obtained by other means, the rule was agreed to evidently without much consideration, and very clearly not in harmony with the Constitution or with antecedent practice under it.

CONCLUSIONS.

conference should agree that, unless a maIf the committees now appointed for jority of both Houses concur in rejecting an electoral vote, it must be counted, a conclusion as it seems to me much more just would be reached than that which the rule established, and I may, I think, add, that such a mode of settling the difficulty would be satisfactory to the country, although others may be equally so.

I cannot doubt, however, that wise legiscessary to settle a question on which such lation on this subject is indispensably neably too late now to frame and adopt it a difference of opinion exists. It is probruary. with a view to the count of the vote in Feb

it seems to me the early practice adopted In the absence of such legislation, by the framers of the Constitution, and stated by Chancellor Kent as the true one, should now be repeated. Any compromise which seeks a solution of the difficulty outside of and independent of the proto prove in the end a curse instead of a visions of the Constitution, is quite likely blessing; and none is very likely to be agreed upon so well calculated to compose the minds as that adopted by our Revolutionary fathers. If men should be so mad

or foolish as to resist by violence the inauguration or rule of an honest, able, and patriotic man, because the votes which elected him were counted in the same manner as were those which elected George Washington and many succeeding Presidents, let the consequences be upon their heads. A corporal's guard will not be found willing to engage in an enterprise so wicked after the 4th of March next.

I had written thus far before reading a pamphlet entitled "The Electoral Votes of 1876,” in which Mr. David Dudley Field attempts to state who should count the votes, what should be counted, and the remedy for a wrong count. Upon reading the pamphlet, I find he might consistently with any practical purpose have entirely omitted to consider the last two questions, for he assumes the two Houses alone have the power to count the electoral vote, and states: "The result must be that what the two Houses do not agree to count cannot be counted." This conclusion appears from the tone of his pamphlet to be quite satisfactory to him. To me it is otherwise, for it is discouraging to learn that after the people have, through their electors, cast their votes for President and Vice President, there should be found no tribunal having the power, and whose duty it is, to determine the persons actually elected; and this is especially so when I reflect that at the close of another election, should one

be held, Mr. Field may again declare, "The result must be that what the two Houses do not agree to count cannot be counted."

Possibly he might weary of this repetition; perhaps a change of circumstances might lead him to reconsider and even change his conclusion; but supposing him to stand firm, there would be no mode of relief unless a majority of the people or the President of the Senate should differ with him. He goes on a brief mission to Congress, where, as his pamphlet indicates, he will be enrolled among the followers of Mr. Tilden. If he should assist in defeating the will of the people as already expressed, and in compelling a resort to another election, a national misfortune, to which the World refers with apparent favor, the injury, nay, destruction, which such success will entail upon the business and social interests of the country, may lead Mr. Field and those with whom he acts to the conclusion that such a mode of counting the electoral vote as was recommended and adopted by the framers of our Constitution is more wise, more just, and better calculated to insure the happiness and prosperity of our people than a method founded upon the proposition that "the result must be that what the two Houses do not agree to count cannot be counted." E. W. STOUGHTON.

MR. TILDEN'S DEFEAT.

committees which the Democrats designed to break down the Republican party and turn back the progress of the Republic, provided the people with a double-edged weapon. Every report exhibited the animus of the Democrats on the committee making it, and furnished facts, which even Democrats were forced to admit, as food for public thought. The Democracy take no note of the intelligence of the audience they address. They forget the people are as much interested in the information published as themselves, if not more so. Certainly the people love the truth, and are better able to arrive at the truth than the wretched Democratic partisans on com

There is an element of unutterable mean- | succeeded in doing so. These investigating ness mixed up in the Democratic clamor over Mr. Tilden's defeat for the Presidency. No man knew Mr. Tilden better than John Kelly, and no man labored with greater vehemence to prevent his nomination, on the simple yet specific ground of his thorough unfitness for the office, and the impossibility of concealing from the public a knowledge of his character. While Mr. Kelly took no pains to hide the motive of his opposition to Mr. Tilden, and went about expressing his regret at the certainty of Mr. Tilden's defeat, and through him of the defeat of the party he represented, it is curious to know that the Democrats in the House of Representatives-both the Southern rebels and their sympathizers-mittees. The time has passed to lead the were laboring to expose him by means of the investigating committees, and happily

people astray by a public document. They prefer to judge for themselves from the

American citizen than the commission of election frauds. How much intensified, therefore, must such a charge be, when brought home to the Democratic candidate for President? His connection with past election frauds cannot be obliterated, and there is a moral conviction that he has been guilty of inspiring or sanctioning the same kind of frauds to assist in his own election. The Congressional report on "Disburse

evidence before them, and in many in- | Nothing is more offensive to an intelligent stances they have turned away from the lying Democratic reports to see what the witnesses said and to determine what credit should be given them. This spirit of investigation and judgment is the fruit of the centennial year, and the Democrats having been caught in their own trap, are submitted by Republicans, as any other specimens of creation, to the political microscope for the purpose of ascertaining what they are and what their chief char-ments under the Registration Act,” dated acteristics.

Mr. Tilden's defeat at the polls was the defeat of the Democratic party as its standard bearer, and the wide-spread fear of Democrats all over the country arose from a dark presentment that they would be beaten. The Democratic party was before the country. It had been suddenly called upon to give an account of itself, for the reason that one of the weakest and worst of its copperhead leaders had been thrust into undue prominence. Mr. Tilden was ambitious. Without the weight or char-mittee, disbursed it. acter necessary to sustain the office of President of the United States, if elected, he wanted the office. He said he wanted the office-almost as a child cries for a new toy. He was, indeed, so foolish as to bow to the whirlwind, blowing to the four winds of heaven the facts of his life as a Democratic politician, and to lift up his voice and declare that the people wanted him-for he was a reformer! He had reached political dotage or second childhood.

Mr. Tilden's friends were in agony at the contretems. Only such as Mr. Hewitt, Mr. S. S. Cox, and others of the same kindey, thought the silliness grand. Respectable Democrats looked on with horror, because they knew that the investigations which had to be made would put Mr. Tilden in a position which would cut him off forever from any chance of regaining the pedestal from which he would be thrown. The knowledge of this now even Mr. Hewitt cannot deny; for President Grant told him that the election of Mr. Tilden would be a national calamity. As for Mr. Cox, he may grin or he may weep over Mr. Tilden's defeat; it was the deliberate and direct act of the people from their knowledge of the man.

August 5, 1876, made by the Republican members of the committee, takes the bull by the horns, and says that whatever may have been the origin and purpose of the numerous Democratic investigations, they had long ago been perverted from their object, and that it was necessary to go back to the history of the gigantic election frauds in New York, "when Tammany ruled the city by means of money which Tweed accumulated and Samuel J. Tilden, as chairman of the State Democratic com* * * Tweed held the keys to the city Treasury, and Samuel J. Tilden was the cashier and general disbursing officer." Congress having passed the necessary laws the books of registration prepared by Mr. Davenport did much to prevent fraud. But if the recommendation of the Democrats on the committee had been accepted, against which Republicans protested, and the acts of Congress repealed, as was desired, it was said that "the repeal of those acts would again usher in the same state of fraud and corruption that existed under the reign of Tweed and Tilden before their passage."

The ominous part of the report was seen in connecting Mr. Tilden's name with the commission of frauds and corruption when he had the power. He had, then, it is true, but a common interest in the success of the Democratic party. But the publication of the report itself during the canvass was significant, and made many people tremble for the man who was then appealing to the country to elect him as its President, who had been guilty of inciting fraud at the previous election of a chief magistrate of a State. He had sent out instructions from the "Rooms of the Democratic State Com

mittee a circular asking that "some reli- | silent and dishonored to the Democratic able" Democrat should be instructed to telegraph to William M. Tweed, Tammany Hall, at the minute of closing the polls, the reliable Democratic estimate of the vote, as follows: