The PRESIDENT. The Chair will not entertain the appeal.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I appeal from that decision.

The PRESIDENT. Nothing is in order but the statement of the vote.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. From that decision I have the honor to appeal.

The PRESIDENT. We decide that in the same way. [Laughter.]

Mr. VAN HORN, of Missouri. I rise to a point of order, and I wish to state it. The

Mr. SHANKS. Will it be in order to ask for the reading of the rule governing this body?

The PRESIDENT. It would not be in order.

Mr. INGERSOLL. I object to any further proceeding on the part of this body until that appeal is entertained and action is had upon it by this body. [Loud shouts of "Order!" "Order!" and great confusion.]

Mr. CALLIS. Mr. President, I rise to a point of order. I cannot believe that members on this floor are in earnest when they indulge in such undignified

Cries of "Order!" "Order!"

the retiring of the Senate upon the objection of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. BurLER] there has been no report made of the action of both Houses upon that subject, and we cannot proceed until a full report is made.

The PRESIDENT. The votes have all been counted, and the statement of the result will be made under the concurrent resolution of both Houses. [Loud cries of "No!" "No!" and other cries of "Announce the vote!"] Mr. DRIGGS. I move that the joint convention adjourn.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. Let us have the House to ourselves. [Laughter and shouts of "Order!"] I respectfully move that

The PRESIDENT. That motion is not in order.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. I rise to a point of order.

Mr. INGERSOLL. I call my colleague to order.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. I make the point of order that an appeal cannot be taken from the decision of the President of this body. [Renewed shouts of "Order!"]

The PRESIDENT. There is no appeal entertained. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. BUTLER] will resume his seat.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts [amid great uproar]. I am in order. I desire the reading of the joint rule upon the subject of counting the votes, which expressly states that a vote cannot be counted unless both Houses concur. I do not know of any power which the President has to override the rules. [Loud cries of "Order."]

The PRESIDENT. The tellers will perform their duty under the concurrent resolution as directed.

Mr. INGERSOLL. I object.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair understands that. [Laughter.]

Mr. INGERSOLL. Now the Senate can retire and consider that objection. [Laughter and cries of "Order!"]

The PRESIDENT. Order! order! Mr. ELDRIDGE. Would it be in order to have peace? [Great laughter.]

Mr. VAN HORN, of Missouri. I rise to a point of order.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I again insist on my appeal from the order of the Chair.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair has decided that an appeal cannot be entertained in the joint convention.

laughter and applause in the galleries.]

Senator DOOLITTLE. I rise to a point of order. It is that everything except the execution of the joint order of both Houses is out of order, and I demand that that order shall now be executed. [Loud shouts of “Order!” "Order!" "Announce the vote!"]

Mr. VAN HORN, of Missouri. I demand a decision on the point of order I have made before any other point can be entertained.

Mr. DICKEY. I desire to make an inquiry of the Chair, whether it is competent for the Senate to decide points of order for this joint convention?

Mr. INGERSOLL (amid cries of "Order!" and the greatest confusion). There must be some misunderstanding with regard to the position of the question at this time. It is not understood by the House generally. Senator DOOLITTLE. I rise to a point of order.

Mr. BENTON. I object.

Mr. INGERSOLL. It is not understood. The PRESIDENT. The gentleman is out of order.

Senator DOOLITTLE. I ask the Chair to call on the tellers to proceed. [Loud cries of "Order!" and "The vote!"] I demand that the tellers shall proceed. [Renewed cries of "Order!" "Order!" and "Announce the vote!"]

Mr. BROMWELL. I rise to ask a question about the order of this proceeding, and I think the Chair will hold it to be a pertinent question. I wish to know, and there are a hundred men here who wish to know, by what authority the Chair makes the ruling denying the right of appeal in this convention from the decision of the Chair?

The PRESIDENT. We are proceeding under a concurrent resolution of both bodies, which has declared how the counting and an

Mr. RANDALL. I rise to a question of order.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state his point of order.

Mr. RANDALL. My point of order is that this House has no right to make reflections upon the other House.

The SPEAKER. The House has the right to adopt such resolutions as it may consider proper when it deems that its rights and privileges have been infringed upon. The Chair asks permission to make a statement in relation to what occurred in the joint convention, and has created so much feeling.

There was no objection.

The SPEAKER. The Chair desires to submit the history of the joint rules, the apparent conflict in which has produced the excitement in the joint convention of the two Houses.

By the Constitution of the United States the President of the Senate presides in joint convention when the electoral votes are counted. The Constitution proceeds no further; it simply provides that

"The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted; the person having the greatest number of votes for President shall be President "

And

the person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed."

On the 6th day of February, 1865, the two Houses of Congress adopted the twenty-second joint rule, in order, as far as possible, to prevent scenes like those which have occurred in the joint convention just adjourned. The second paragraph of that joint rule reads as follows:

"If upon the reading of such certificate by the tellers"

This is the certificate of the vote of any State

"any question shall arise in regard to counting the votes therein certified, the same having been stated by the presiding officer, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and said question shall be submitted to that body for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall in like manner submit said question to the House of Representatives

affirmatively, and no vote objected to shall be counted except by the concurrent votes of the two Houses; which being obtained, the two Houses shall immediately reassemble, and the presiding officer shall then announce the decision of the question submitted; bate in either House." and upon any such question there shall be no de

If this rule stood alone it would follow necessarily that if any objection were made to the counting of any vote from any State of the Union, whether that vote was uncontested or contested, the two Houses must meet in their respective Chambers and without debate decide the question. A few days since, however, the same legislative power that enacted this joint rule saw fit to enact another in the form of a concurrent resolution covering part of the precise ground covered by the twentysecond joint rule. This was adopted in both reference to the joint meeting which has just branches upon the yeas and nays with direct been held. The Chair, though not a lawyer, supposes it to be one of the fundamental principles of legal interpretation that when there are two statutes bearing upon any question, and it is impossible to reconcile them, the later statute must have the prevailing force. If they can be reconciled, they must both stand. The same bodies which enacted the twentysecond joint rule adopted, on votes by yeas and nays in both branches, a concurrent resolooked amid the feeling which has grown up lution, the preamble to which has been overin the joint convention. The twenty-second joint rule provided that "if upon the reading of any such certificate," that is the certificate from any State, "any question shall arise in regard to counting the votes therein certified," a certain procedure shall then follow. The concurrent resolution, however, adopted within the last few days lays down a different rule in regard to one State, and in the opinion of the Speaker of the House takes that State out of the operation of the twenty-second rule. The Chair thinks it was intended to be taken out, that intelligent gentlemen in voting for it intended to withdraw the State of Georgia from the operation of the twenty-second joint rule; otherwise, as the Chair will show, it would in the concluding part be an absurdity. The preamble to this concurrent resolution reads as follows:

"Whereas the question whether the State of Georgia has become and is entitled to representation in the two Houses of Congress is now pending and undetermined"

That apparently being a fact within the knowledge of members of both branches of Congress

"and whereas by the joint resolution of Congress passed July 20, 1868, entitled 'A resolution excluding from the electoral college votes of States lately in rebellion, which shall not have been reorganized, it was provided that no electoral votes from any of the States lately in rebellion should be received or counted for President or Vice-President of the United States until, among other things, such State

should have become entitled to representation in Congress, pursuant to the acts of Congress in that

behalf: Therefore,

"Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That on the assembling of the two Houses on the second Wednesday of February, 1869, for the counting of the electoral votes for President and Vice-President, as provided by law and the joint rules, if the counting or omitting to count the elecoral votes, if any, which may be presented, as of the State of Georgia, shall not essentially change the result, in that case they shall be reported by the President of the Senate in the following manner:

This is the language which the resolution commands shall be uttered by the mouth of the President of the Senate:

"Were the votes presented, as of the State of Georgia, to be counted, the result would be, for for President of the United State, votes; if not counted, for for President of the United States,

votes; but in either case- is elected President of the United States; and in the same manner for Vice-President."

This concurrent resolution, adopted by the same legal authority which adopted the joint rule, declares in its preamble that it is a fact apparent to Congress that it is a grave question whether the State of Georgia is entitled to representation; that that question is undetermined; and that therefore, when the two Houses shall assemble, "as provided by law and by the joint rules," then if the counting, or the omitting to count, the electoral votes of Georgia shall not affect the result, the result shall be announced by the President of the Senate in a form of language which he is imperatively required to adopt. The President of the Senate has complied with the law which the two Houses laid down for him. In the opinion of the Chair, he would have been subject to the censure of the two Houses if he had not complied with the law which these bodies laid down for the performance of his duties in joint convention. The Chair entertained the objection of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. BUTLER] when the Senate retired, because the Senate retired upon the ruling of their own President. But the Chair thinks that in the subsequent proceedings of the joint convention the President of the Sen'ate complied exactly with his oath and his duty under the joint rules and the concurrent resolution, the latter being the later, and, so far as it differs from the other, qualifying and repealing it.

Mr.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. Speaker, I desire now to address the House for a few moments on my resolution.

The SPEAKER. The question is debatable. Mr. SPALDING. I hope the gentleman from Massachusetts will yield for a motion to adjourn.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. No, sir. There is no time like the present to settle a great question like this.

Mr. SPALDING. I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. No, sir; I do not yield for that motion.

Mr. DRIGGS. I hope the resolution which the gentleman from Massachusetts has offered will be again read, so that we may see what is

before the House.

The resolution was again read.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. I rise to a question of order. I desire to know whether it is not in the power of the House to decide whether that shall be entertained as a question of privilege or not.

The SPEAKER. It was, if the Chair had submitted it to the House; but it has already been decided to be a question of privilege.

Mr. ELDRIDGE. I appeal from that decision of the Chair.

The SPEAKER. The Chair declines to entertain the appeal on the well-known ground that when a point of order is once decided it cannot be again renewed. When a point of order is once decided it cannot be again renewed, although additional reasons may be assigned for it.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. I withdrew the point of order because the Chair wished to make a statement.

The SPEAKER. It is too late now: and the Chair, after making his own statements, would not like to see the gentleman from Massachusetts deprived of the privilege of replying to him.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I ask the privilege of the House, Mr. Speaker, that during the remarks which I propose to submit I shall not be interrupted, and for this reason: the point which is now before the House is as grave a one as ever came to be settled by any legislative body. Whatever our feelings may be, under what we deem to be a gross invasion of our privileges of natural and ordinary beat arising from such oppression, I trust that the few moments elapsing after the deed has been done are sufficient to allow us to bring our minds calmly, coolly, and dispassionately to see the exact merits of the question. Allow me to premise, sir, that I think this resolution stands outside of all the remarks of the Speaker of this House. Even if the Vice-President were right in doing what he did, yet, for the manner in which he did it, we are without redress, and if he were wrong it was the greatest outrage upon the rights and privileges of this House.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let us see exactly where we stand. The Constitution of the United States says that the President of the Senate shall open in convention all of the votes of all of the States, and they shall therein be counted, and it is as impossible for this House or the Senate, either jointly or separately, in concurrence or otherwise, to stop the operation of that constitutional enactment as it is to turn back the sun in its course; for, as you will see, sir, we stand in this position: if the House and the Senate, by joint action before had, can determine what votes shall be counted and what votes shall not be counted, then the

House and the Senate can determine who is and who is not to be the President of the United States, and who is and who is not to be the Vice-President of the United States. The SPEAKER. The gentleman will yield to receive a message from the Senate of the United States.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I do not know whether I should or not.

A message was received from the Senate, by Mr. McDONALD, its Chief Clerk, notifying the House that the Senate had passed a resolution for the appointment of a committee of one on its part to join such committee as may be appointed on the part of the House to wait upon U. S. Grant, President-elect of the United States, and also upon Schuyler Colfax, VicePresident-elect of the United States, and inform them of their election, and have appointed Mr. MORTON, of Indiana, as such committee on its part.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. You will see in a moment, Mr. Speaker, that whether the vote of Georgia is counted or not at this time makes no difference; but if this House and the Senate can say that such a State shall be counted, and such a State shall not be counted, it is within the power of the House and the Senate to say who shall be President and who shall not be President. Nay, more; if it is in the power of the House of Representatives to make a rule that no vote of a State shall be counted unless both the House and the Senate agree together, then it puts it in the power of either House to determine who shall be President of the United States, and from this day henceforth there can be no election whenever the House. and Senate are opposed to each other. Think of it a moment, gentlemen. Suppose a case of a presidential election when the House is one way and the Senate another. Under that joint rule, which is constitutional and operating, the House will say, "We will not have the Republican votes counted," and the Senate will say, "We will not have the Democratic votes counted," and there is an end to the proceeding of the election. Now, then, what did the Constitution mean? It meant that a convention should come together of the two Houses. What is meant by that convention? It is claimed on the part of the Senate that they sit in the convention as an independent body, and in deference to their claim of privilege-because they are a small body, and by practice their votes would be overthrown-we have permitted heretofore by the rule that all questions should be considered in the separate bodies.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dawes in the Chair). The House will preserve order.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I am sorry to speak when gentlemen have so little disposition to hear; but still I must do my duty, whatever it is.

Mr. JONES, of Kentucky. Is it in order to raise a question of order? .

The SPEAKER, pro tempore. It is. Mr. JONES, of Kentucky. I protest that this is not a question of privilege. Every member in this House will have a right to discuss the matter the gentleman is discussing.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Speaker has already decided this to be a question of privilege, and it has been already entertained as such by the House.

Mr. JONES, of Kentucky. I insist, then, that the gentleman is not arguing a question of privilege which he has raised, but is discussing the question whether the electoral vote of Georgia ought to be counted or not. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts will proceed.

Mr. SPALDING. Mr. Speaker, is it in order to move to go to business on the Speaker's table? If so I make that motion.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is entitled to the floor, and declines to yield to any one.

Mr. SPALDING. I supposed as he took me off the floor the other day by that motion that I could do the same with him.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. It is not after the morning hour.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is only after the morning hour that that rule prevails. Mr. FARNSWORTH. I want to get the permission of the House that there shall be no further business transacted to-night.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Massachusetts yield for that motion? I have

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. asked that I may not be interrupted. Mr. FARNSWORTH. Then the gentleman can speak without interruption.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman decline to yield to take the sense of the House whether there shall be any further business transacted to-night?

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I have over and over again said I decline to yield. My friend may go if he does not want to hear me.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. I do not understand what the gentleman-

Calls to order.

I was

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. about saying when I was interrupted that this therefore becomes a question of great gravity, because while the Speaker has thought that the action of the President of the Senate was right, admitting that for a moment, what could have happened if he had been wrong, as I believe him to have been? What redress had we suppose he had declared, standing in his place, Horatio Seymour President of the United States against our protest? He might have done that just as well as what he did do, and we should have been as powerless under the Constitution as we are now, with nothing left to us but the great right of revolution. The same arbitrary proceeding; the same crowding