CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



dustry, the research, and the patriotism of that 



Senator, I never differ with him without doubt- 



ing the correctness of my own judgment, and 



yet what he has said has not changed my opin- 



^ion of the second section of this bill. On the 



* contrary, I think that the point upon which he 



mainly relies in opposition to that section is 



not well taken, that the difficulty he supposes 



can never by any possibility exist. 



"Suppose the second section were stricken 

 out of the bill, and the bill were passed with- 

 out it, what would be the effect of the bill thus 

 enacted into a law ? And here I crave the at- 

 tention of the Senate, and especially of those 

 who have been impressed by the very grave 

 and forcible remarks of the Senator from Del- 

 aware. If that section were stricken out of 

 the bill, then the only provision in the bill for 

 the counting of the votes would be that a re- 

 turn should be counted unless both Houses 

 concurred in rejecting it. That would be the 

 bill applicable in every case. Mark it, Sena- 

 tors ; in every case a return should be counted 

 unless both Houses concurred in rejecting it. 



" Now, under such a law as that, suppose 

 the President of the Senate to lay the return 

 from a State before the two Houses, and an 

 objection be made to that return. The Senate 

 retires to its Chamber, and a vote is taken in 

 the two Houses whether that return shall be 

 received. The Senate votes not to receive it ; 

 the House votes that it shall be received. The 

 effect would be, under the first section of the 

 bill, that that return must be counted. Re- 

 member that. Here is a return, we will sup- 

 pose, just as there was at the last count, from 

 the State of Louisiana. It is presented, opened 

 by the Presiding Officer, handed to the tellers. 

 An objection is made to its being counted. 

 The two Houses separate in order to decide 

 the question. One of the Houses decides to 

 count it; the other not to count it. Then, 

 under the first section of the bill, it would be 

 counted. If there is another return from that 

 same State, the Senator from Delaware seems 

 to think yeu would have to go through the 

 same process with that second return that you 

 did with the first, and that if the Houses were 

 reversed upon the second return, as there was 

 not a concurrence in rejecting it, both returns 

 would have to be received, and Louisiana would 

 be counted at twice the number of votes to 

 which under the Constitution she is entitled. 

 I submit to my friend that by no possibility 

 could such a thing occur, because when once 

 you have counted all the votes to which a 

 State is entitled you can count no more. It is 

 impossible ; the thing is res adjudicata. 



" The moment you have decided, either by the 

 difference of the two Houses as to the count- 

 ing of the returns or in any other manner, that 

 that return shall be counted, the vote of that 

 State is given and no other vote from it can be 

 received. Can there be any thing clearer than 

 that? Suppose there be two returns from 

 Louisiana, one of them is presented and an ob- 



jection is made to its count. The Houses 

 separate, and one of the Houses decides that it 

 shall be counted. Would it not be counted then ? 

 No one will say no. Then suppose the other 

 return is presented. What is the objection to 

 that ? * We have counted Louisiana once ; we 

 cannot count her again. We have given her 

 all the votes to which she is entitled ; we can- 

 not receive any further return from that State.' 

 But now, if by our act we make a difference 

 of opinion between the two Houses equal to a 

 judgment of both Houses in favor of the re- 

 ception of a return, it is just as plain as that 

 two and two make four that when you have 

 counted one return the matter is res adjudicata, 

 and you cannot count another. 



"Therefore, there can be no such thing as 

 my friend from Delaware seems to suppose of 

 heaping up the votes of a single State and giv- 

 ing her twice the vote to which under the 

 Constitution she is entitled, requiring a candi- 

 date to receive more votes in order to elect 

 him than the Constitution requires. I beg my 

 friend from Delaware to bear in mind what 

 would be the result. Suppose we are in Jan- 

 uary, 1877, and this second section is not a 

 part of the law, but the first section alone is 

 the law. Suppose the State of Alabama, the 

 first on the list, is called, and there are two 

 returns from Alabama, returns from two bodies 

 claiming to be electors, as there were from 

 Louisiana and from Arkansas at the last count. 

 Is there any law that says which of those re- 

 turns shall be first presented by the President 

 of the Senate ? No, sir ; and you cannot make 

 any law that will meet that case. It is there- 

 fore within his discretion which one he will 

 present first, which he will open first, and hand 

 to the tellers first ; and just as certain as that 

 he has eyes in his head, so certain will he know 

 which one of those two returns is the return 

 of the Republican electors and which is the re- 

 turn of the Democratic electors, and just as 

 certain as human nature is human nature the 

 return of the Republican electors will be opened 

 first and handed to the tellers first. Then, if 

 the House may vote to reject it and the Senate 

 to receive it, under this first section of the bill 

 it is received. Then the vote of that State has 

 been counted, and there is no question upon 

 any other return, and cannot be. So that the 

 effect of striking out the second section of the 

 bill is simply this : that where the two Houses 

 are divided in opinion upon a question which 

 shall be the true return, the whole thing is de- 

 termined by the Presiding Officer by the sim- 

 ple fact of which return he opens and presents 

 first. That is the result of it. The whole thing 

 is done in that way. Whichever return the 

 President of the Senate shall first open and 

 first hand to the tellers, where the Houses are 

 divided in opinion, that return, under this first 

 section, must be received, because both Houses 

 do not concur in rejecting it ; and, that being 

 received, no other return can be considered at 

 all, for the question, as I said before, is res ad- 



