Bramlette, of Kentucky, 3 votes; for William S. Groesbeck, of Ohio, 1 vote; and for Willis B. Machen, of Kentucky, 1 vote. Wherefore, I do declare that Ulysses S. Grant, of the State of Illinois, having received a majority of the whole number of electoral votes, is duly elected President of the United States for four years, commencing on the 4th day of March, 1873; and that Henry Wilson, of the State of Massachusetts, having received a majority of the whole number of electoral votes for Vice-President of the United States, is duly elected Vice-President of the United States for four years, commencing on the 4th day of March, 1873. The object for which the House and Senate have assembled in joint convention having been accomplished, the Senate will retire to its Chamber. The Senate accordingly retired from the Hall of the House of Representatives. The Speaker then resumed the chair and called the House to order. IN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Thursday, February 13, 1873. Mr. DAWES. I submit the following resolution: Resolved, That a committee of two, to join a committee of the Senate, be appointed to wait on Ulysses S. Grant, of Illinois, to notify him that he has been duly elected President of the United States for four years, commencing on the 4th day of March, 1873; and also to notify Henry Wilson, of Massachusetts, that he has been duly elected Vice-President of the United States for four years, commencing on the 4th day of March, 1873. The resolution was adopted. The SPEAKER. The Chair, in pursuance of the resolution just adopted, names as the committee the gentlemen who acted as tellers: Mr. Dawes, of Massachusetts, and Mr. Beck, of Kentucky. PROPOSED LEGISLATION AS TO THE MODE OF COUNTING THE ELECTORAL VOTES. 1800. IN SENATE. Thursday, January 23, 1800. ("Annals of Congress," 6th Cong., p. 28.) On motion of Mr. Ross, that it be Resolved, That a committee be appointed to consider whether any, and what, provisions ought to be made by law for deciding disputed elections of President and Vice-President of the United States, and for determining the legality or illegality of the votes given for those officers in the different States A motion was made to amend the motion by adding, "and that the committee be authorized to report by bill or otherwise." Mr. Brown, of Kentucky, was of opinion that this was a subject on which Congress had no right to legislate. When the Constitution undertook to make provisions on a subject, if they were found incomplete or defective, they must be remedied by recommending an amendment to the Constitution. He wished the gentleman who had made this motion would pay further attention to the subject, and believed he would find that, if anything was to be done, it must be done by proposing an amendment to the Constitution. their duty to make provision for it, and he believed a law was sufficient. Mr. C. Pinckney, of South Carolina, thought it a very dangerous practice to endeavor to amend the Constitution by making laws for the purpose. The Constitution was a sacred deposit, put into their hands; they ought to take great care not to violate or destroy the essential provisions made by that instrument. He remembered very well that in the Federal Convention great care was used to provide for the elec tions of the President of the United States independently of Congress; to take the business as far as possible out of their hands. The votes are to be given by electors appointed for that express purpose. The electors are to be appointed by each State, and the whole direction as to the manner of their appointment is given to the State Legislature. Nothing was more clear to him than that Congress had no right to meddle with it at all; as the whole was intrusted to the State Legislature, they must make provisions for all questions arising on the occasion. Mr. Dexter, of Massachusetts, did not feel himself at all in doubt as to the right of the Legislature to make such provisions on this subject as appeared to be necessary. It was Mr. Ross said that the Constitution had cer- directed by the Constitution that a President tainly made no provision on this subject; it should be appointed, that he should be of not only directed that after the votes were re- less than thirty-five years of age, that he should ceived, etc., the President of the Senate should, have been at least fourteen years a citizen of in the presence of the Senate and the House of the United States, etc. The proceedings in Representatives, open the certificates, and the the election of a President may be defective in votes should be counted. Suppose, said he, all these particulars, and can it be supposed persons should claim to be electors who had that there is no way to correct them? The never been properly appointed, should their Constitution is not silent on this head; among vote be received? Suppose they should vote the powers given to Congress in the 5th secfor a person to be President who had not the tion is this: "To pass all laws necessary and age required by the Constitution, or who had proper for carrying into execution the foregonot been long enough a citizen of the United ing powers, and all other powers vested by States, or for two persons who were both citi-this Constitution in the Government of the zens of the same State. Such cases might happen and were very likely to happen, and is there no remedy? What a situation would the country be in if such a case was to happen! He thought it United States, or in any department or officer thereof." The law now proposed appears to be necessary to carry into effect the power of appointing the President; it is therefore clearly constitutional. PROPOSED LEGISLATION AS TO THE MODE OF COUNTING THE ELECTORAL VOTES. 415 Mr. Livermore, of New Hampshire, never felt less doubt on any subject than the one now under consideration: the Constitution has given many directions as to the appointment of the President, some of which he read. Is it possible (said Mr. Livermore) that gentlemen can suppose all these may be violated and disregarded, and yet that it is nobody's business to interpose and make provisions to prevent it? He trusted the honorable Senate would agree to the resolution to appoint a committee for that purpose. Mr. Baldwin, of Georgia, expressed his regret that the mover of this resolution had not thought proper to bring forward a subject so new and important, in the form commonly used in parliamentary assemblies, by a single proposition, viz., "That it is expedient that further provision be made respecting disputed votes for President and Vice-President of the United States." It was manifest from the debate that several different questions had been under consideration at the same time, and different gentlemen were in fact directing their remarks to different questions. The first question was, the one he had just mentioned, whether there was so great a defect in the present provisions, which exist on this subject, as to render further provisions necessary? The second is, if further provisions are necessary, must they be made by amendment to the Constitution? or, Thirdly, whether they can be made by law? He must say, for himself, that he did not agree that the present provisions on this subject were so defective and absurd as had been represented. His general respect for those who had gone before him in this House, and especially for the venerable assembly of the most experienced statesmen of the country by whom the Constitution had been formed, forbade him to entertain the belief that this subject, which is the strong feature that characterizes this as an elective Government, could have been till now so entirely out of sight and neglected. Gentlemen appeared to him, from their observations, to forget that the Constitution in directing electors to be appointed throughout the United States equal to the whole number of the Senators and Representatives in Congress, for the express purpose of intrusting this constitutional branch of power to them, had provided for the existence of as respectable a body as Congress, and in whom the Constitution on this business has more confidence than in Congress. Experience had proved that a more venerable selection of characters could not be made in this country than usually composed that electoral body. And what are the questions which can arise on the subject intrusted to them to which they are incompetent, or to which Congress is so much more competent? The questions which present themselves seem to be: 1. Those which relate to the elections, returns, and qualifications of their own members. Shall these be taken away from that body, and submitted to the superior decision and control of Congress, without a particle of authority for it from the Constitution? 2. The legality or constitutionality of the different steps of their own proceedings, as, whether they vote for two persons, both of the same State; whether they received votes for a person under thirty-five years of age, or one who has not been fourteen years a citizen of the United States, etc. It is true they, as well as any other constitutional branch of this Government acting under that instrument, may be guilty of taking unconstitutional or corrupt steps, but they do it at their peril. Suppose either of the other branches of the Government, the Executive or the Judiciary, or even Congress, should be guilty of taking steps which are unconstitutional, to whom is it submitted, or who has control over it, except by impeachment? The Constitution seems to have equal confidence in all the branches on their own proper ground, and for either to arrogate superiority, or a claim to greater confidence, shows them in particular to be unworthy of it, as it is in itself directly unconstitutional. 3. The authentication of their own acts. This would seem to be as complete in them as in either of the other branches of the Govern ment. Their own authentication of their act finishes the business intrusted to them. It is true this must be judged of by the persons who are concerned in carrying it into execution; as in all laws and official acts under this Government, they to whom they are directed, and who are to be bound by them, must judge, and judge at their peril, whether they are duly authenticated or whether they are only a forgery. If this be the just view of the subject (and he could see no other which did not involve inextricable difficulties), it leaves no possible question for the Senators and Representatives, when met together to count the votes agreeably to the Constitution, but to judge of the authentication of the act of the electors, and then to proceed and count the vote as directed. If this body of the electors of all the States had been directed by the Constitution to assemble in one place, instead of being formed into different electoral colleges, he took it for granted none of the questions on which this resolution has been brought forward would have occurred; every one would have acknowledged that they were to be settled in that assembly. It having been deemed more safe by the Constitution to form them into different electoral colleges, to be assembled in the several States, does not at all alter the nature or distinctness of their powers, or subject them any more to the control of the other departments of the IN SENATE. Friday, February 14, 1800. ("Annals of Congress," 6th Cong., p. 47.) Mr. Ross, from the committee appointed the 28th of January last, reported a bill prescribing the mode of deciding disputed elec tions of President and Vice-President of the United States, which was read and ordered to the second reading. Government. He observed further, on the other points to which gentlemen had spoken, that if such radical and important changes were to be made on this subject, as seemed to be in contemplation under this resolution, he thought they must be made by proposing an amendment to the Constitution to that effect; and that they could not be made by law, without violating the Constitution. He did not agree with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Dexter), that the clause at the close of the 8th section of the Constitution, which gives to Congress power to pass all laws necessary and proper to carry into effect the foregoing powers of that section, and all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or office thereof, could be extended to this case; that speaks of the use of the powers vested by the Constitution-this resolution relates to the formation of a competent and essential part of the Government itself; that speaks of the movements of the Government after it is organized; this relates to the organization of the Executive branch, and is therefore clearly a constitutional work, and to be done, if at all, in the manner pointed the bill prescribing the mode of deciding dis out by the Constitution, by proposing an arti-puted elections of President and Vice-Presi cle of amendment to the Constitution on that dent of the United States. subject. His own opinion, however, was what he had before stated, that the provisions on this subject were already sufficient; that all the questions which had been suggested were as safely left to the decision of the assemblies of electors as of any body of men that could be devised; and that the members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives, when met together in one room, should receive the act of the electors as they would the act of any other constitutional branch of the Government, to judge only of its authentication, and then to proceed to count the votes, as directed in the second article of the Constitution. IN SENATE. Friday, January 24, 1800. ("Annals of Congress," 6th Cong., p. 33.) The Senate resumed the consideration of the motion made yesterday, that a committee be appointed to consider whether any, and what, provisions ought to be made by law for deciding disputed elections of President and VicePresident of the United States, and for determining the legality or illegality of the votes given for those officers in the different States, and that the committee be authorized to report by bill or otherwise; and the motion as amended was adopted; and Ordered, That Messrs. Ross, Lawrance, Dexter, Pinckney, and Livermore be the committee. IN SENATE. Thursday, February 20, 1800. ("Annals of Congress," 6th Cong., p. 49.) The Senate resumed the consideration of On motion to strike out of the first section of the bill the following words Together with the Chief Justice of the United States, or, if he be absent from the seat of Govern ment or unable to attend, then with the next senior Judge of the Supreme Court of the United States who may be present and able to attend It passed in the negative-yeas 11, nays 19; as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Anderson, Baldwin, Bloodworth, Dexter, Foster, Greene, Gunn, Hillhouse, Howard, On motion to strike out these words from the 1st section, "to choose by ballot in each House six members," and in lieu thereof to insert, "to draw by lot in each House members "_____ It was determined in the negative—yeas 9, nays 18; as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Anderson, Baldwin, Bloodworth, Brown, Cocke, Langdon, Marshall, Mason, and Nicholas. NAYS-Messrs. Chipman, Dayton, Dexter, Foster, Franklin, Goodhue, Greene, Gunn, Hillhouse, Latimer, Lawrance, Livermore, Paine, Read, Ross, Schureman, Tracy, and Wells. Ordered, That the further consideration of the bill be postponed. IN SENATE. Monday, February 24, 1800. ("Annals of Congress," 6th Cong., p. 51.) The Senate resumed the second reading of the bill prescribing the mode of deciding dis 1 puted elections of President and Vice-President of the United States. On motion to amend the bill, section 5th, line 7th, so as to provide that the proceedings of the committee be held in public, by striking out the words "with closed doors,' and inserting, "in the Chamber of the House of ་ Representatives, with open doors," in lieu thereof It passed in the negative-yeas 8, nays 16; as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Anderson, Baldwin, Bloodworth, Cocke, Franklin, Langdon, Mason, and Nicholas. NAYS-Messrs. Bingham, Chipman, Foster, Goodhue, Greene, Hillhouse, Howard, Latimer, Lawrance, Livermore, Marshall, Paine, Read, Ross, Tracy, and Wells. And, after progress, the further consideration of the bill was postponed. IN SENATE. Thursday, February 27, 1800. ("Annals of Congress," 6th Cong., p. 64.) The Senate resumed the second reading of the bill prescribing the mode of deciding disputed elections of President and Vice-President of the United States; and, after progress, adjourned. On motion to amend the second section proposed as an amendment to the bill, by expunging these words, "reduce by lot, in the manner before prescribed, the committee above selected, to the number of six," and to insert, "choose by ballot six out of the committee above selected," it passed in the affirmativeyeas 15, nays 13; as follows: YEAS--Messrs. Bingham, Chipman, Dayton, Foster, Goodhue, Greene, Hillhouse, Latimer, Lawrance, Livermore, Paine, Read, Ross, Tracy, and Watson. NAYS Messrs. Anderson, Baldwin, Bloodworth, Brown, Cocke, Franklin, Howard, Langdon, Lloyd, Mason, Nicholas, Pinckney, and Schureman. On motion to agree to the amendment amended, as follows: Section 1, lines 6, 7, and 8, strike out these words, "choose by ballot in each House six members thereof, and the twelve persons thus chosen," and insert the following: "draw by lot in each House, and in the following manner, twenty-four members thereof, viz.: that the Secretary of the Senate shall write the names of all the Senators present, on distinct pieces of paper, of nearly equal size, and shall roll them up and place them in a box, which shall be then shaken and intermixed together; after which, the Secretary of the Senate shall draw with the names written on them, until twentyout of the said box the said pieces of paper four names of the Senators then present shall be so drawn. He shall deliver the same to the President of the Senate, who shall open and read them aloud, and the Secretary of the Senate shall write down the names so called. Clerk of the House of Representatives shall, on the same day, write the names of all the members of the said House present, on distinct pieces of paper, of nearly equal size, and shall roll them up and place them in a box, which shall be then shaken and intermixed together; after which, the Clerk of the House shall draw The IN SENATE. Friday, February 28, 1800. ("Annals of Congress," 6th Cong., p. 64.) The Senate resumed the second reading of the bill prescribing the mode of deciding disputed elections of President and Vice-President of the United States; and, after debate, the further consideration thereof was post-out of the said box the said pieces of paper poned. On motion to amend the amendment which stood "draw by lot in each House, and in the following manner, eighteen members thereof," by expunging the word "eighteen," and inserting the word "twenty-four," it passed in the affirmative-yeas 16, nays 13; as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Anderson, Chipman, Dayton, Foster, Goodhue, Hillhouse, Ioward, Latimer, Lawrance, Livermore, Paine, Read, Ross, Schureman, Tracy, and Watson. NAYS-Messrs. Baldwin, Bingham, Bloodworth, Brown, Cocke, Franklin, Greene, Langdon, Lloyd, Marshall, Mason, Nicholas, and Pinckney. with the names written on them, until twentyfour names of the members then present shall be drawn. He shall deliver the same to the Speaker of the House, who shall open and read them aloud, and the Clerk shall write down the names so called. "And be it further enacted, That, previous to the day preceding the second Wednesday in February of any year, the Senate and House of Representatives shall then, respectively, proceed to choose, by ballot, six out of the committee above selected ". It passed in the negative-yeas 4, nays 24; as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Anderson, Bloodworth, Langdon, and Mason. " NAYS-Messrs. Baldwin, Bingham, Brown, Chipman, Cocke, Foster, Franklin, Goodhue, Greene, Hillhouse, Howard, Latimer, Lawrance, Livermore, Lloyd, Marshall, Nicholas, Paine, Pinckney, Read, Ross, Schureman, Tracy, and Watson. On motion, to insert in the 10th section, line 9th, after the word "committee," these words: "such rejection shall be founded on a |