CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



173 



ond paragraph of that joint rule reads as fol- 

 lows : 



If upon the reading of such certificate by the tell- 

 ers 



" 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 Bepresentatives shall in like manner sub- 

 mit said question to the House of Eepresentatives 

 for its decision. And no question shall be decided 

 affirmatively, and no vote objected to shall be count- 

 ed except by the concurrent votes of the two Houses ; 

 which being obtained, the two Houses shall immedi- 

 ately reassemble, and the presiding officer shall then 

 announce the decision of the question submitted; 

 and upon any such question there shall be no debate 

 in either House. 



" 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 de- 

 cide 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 twenty-second 

 joint rule. This was adopted in both branch- 

 es upon the yeas and nays with direct reference 

 to the joint meeting which has just 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 stat- 

 utes- bearing upon any question, and it is im- 

 possible to reconcile them, the later statute 

 must have the prevailing force. If they can 

 be reconciled, they must both stand. The 

 same hodies which enacted the twenty-second 

 joint rule adopted, on votes by yeas and nays 

 in both branches, a concurrent resolution, the 

 preamble to which has been overlooked amid 

 the feeling which has grown up in the joint 

 convention. The twenty-second joint rule pro- 

 vides 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 opera- 

 tion of the twenty-second rule. The Chair 

 thinks it was intended to he taken out, that in- 

 telligent gentlemen in voting for it intended to 

 withdraw the State of Georgia from the oper- 

 ation of the twenty-second joint rule; other- 

 wise, as the Chair will show, it would in the 

 concluding part be an absurdity. The pream- 

 ble to this concurrent resolution reads as fol- 

 lows : 



Whereas, the question whether the State of Georgia 

 Las become and is entitled to representation in the 



two Houses of Congress is now pending and undeter- 

 mined 



"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 exclud- 

 ing 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 ty tTie Senate (the House of Eepresenta- 

 tives 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 elec- 

 toral votes, if any, which may be presented, as of the 

 State of Georgia, shall not essentially change the re- 

 sult, in that case they shall be reported by the Presi- 

 dent 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 Geor- 

 gia, to be counted, the result would be, for for 



President of the United States, votes ; if not 



counted, for for President of the United States, 



votes ; but in either case is elected Presi- 

 dent 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 rep- 

 resentation ; that that question is undeter- 

 mined ; and that therefore, when the two 

 Houses shall assemble, ' as provided l>y law 

 and ly the joint rules," 1 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 im- 

 peratively 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 sub- 

 ject 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 Massachu- 

 setts (Mr. Butler) when the Senate retired, be- 

 cause 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 Senate com- 

 plied 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 dif- 

 fers from the other, qualifying and repealing 

 it." 



Mr. Butler, of Massachusetts: "Now, Mr. 

 Speaker, let us see exactly where we stand. 



