[Hinds' Precedents, Volume 3]
[Chapter 59 - The Electoral Counts, 1789 To 1873]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


                  THE ELECTORAL COUNTS, 1789 TO 1873.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. Procedure at the first count. Section 1928.
    2. Practice from 1793 to 1813. Sections 1929-1934.
    3. The count of 1817. Section 1935.
    4. The count of 1821. Sections 1936, 1937.
    5. Counts from 1825 to 1833. Sections 1938-1940.
    6. The count of 1837. Section 1941.
    7. The counts from 1841 to 1853. Sections 1942-1945.
    8. The count of 1857. Section 1946.
    9. Counts of 1861 and 1865. Sections 1947, 1948.
   10. The count of 1869. Sections 1949, 1950.
   11. The count of 1873. Sections 1951, 1952.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

  1928. Proceedings of the electoral count of 1789. The tellers on the 
part of the House for this count were appointed by resolution.
  At the first electoral count the Senate elected a President pro 
tempore solely for that occasion.
  An instance wherein a Member of the House was intrusted with a 
message to the Senate.
  On April 6, 1789,\1\ a message was received from the Senate, brought 
by Mr. Oliver Ellsworth, a Senator from Connecticut, as follows:

  Mr. Speaker, I am charged by the Senate to inform this House that a 
quorum of the Senate is now formed; that a President is elected\2\ for 
the sole purpose of opening the certificates and counting the votes of 
the electors of the several States in the choice of a President and 
Vice-President of the United States; and that the Senate is now ready 
in the Senate Chamber to proceed, in the presence of this House, to 
discharge that duty. I have also in further charge to inform this House 
that the Senate has appointed one of its members to sit at the clerk's 
table to make a list of the votes as they shall be declared, submitting 
it to the wisdom of this House to appoint one or more of its members 
for the like purpose

  Mr. Elias Boudinot, of New Jersey, on the part of the House, informed 
the Senate that the House would attend.\3\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session First Congress, Journal, pp. 7, 8 (Gales & Seaton 
ed.); Annals, pp. 17, 101.
  \2\ John Langdon, Senator from New Hampshire.
  \3\ Senate Journal, p. 8.
                                                            Sec. 1929
  On motion it was

  Resolved, That Mr. Speaker, attended by the House, do now withdraw to 
the Senate Chamber for the purpose expressed in the message from the 
Senate; and that Mr. Parker and Mr. Heister be appointed on the part of 
this House to sit at the Clerk's table with the member of the Senate, 
and make a list of the votes as the same shall be declared.

  The Speaker accordingly left the chair, and, attended by the House, 
withdrew to the Senate Chamber.
  The Senate Journal says: \1\

  The Speaker and House of Representatives attended in the Senate 
Chamber, for the purpose expressed in the message delivered by Mr. 
Ellsworth, and after some time withdrew.
  The Senate proceeded by ballot to the choice of a President of their 
body pro tempore. John Langdon, esq., was duly elected.
  The President elected for the purpose of counting the votes declared 
to the Senate that the Senate and House of Representatives had met, and 
that he, in their presence, had opened and counted the votes of the 
electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, which 
were as follows: [Here followed tabulation.]
  Whereby it appears that George Washington, esq., was unanimously 
elected President, and John Adams, esq., was duly elected Vice-
President of the United States of America.

  1929. Proceedings at the electoral count of 1793.
  In a case where the Vice-President was also the Vice-President-elect 
the Senate announced the election of a President pro tempore for the 
sole purpose of opening the certificates and counting the votes; but it 
does not appear certain that he acted.
  On February 5, 1793,\2\ in the House, it was--

  Resolved, That a committee be appointed, to join such committee as 
may be appointed by the Senate, to ascertain and report the mode of 
examining the votes for President and Vice-President, and of notifying 
the persons who shall be elected of their election, and to regulate the 
time, place, and manner of administering the oath of office to the 
President.

  Messrs. William Smith, of South Carolina; James Madison, of Virginia, 
and John Laurance, of New York, were appointed this committee on the 
part of the House. On the part of the Senate Messrs. Rufus King, of New 
York; Ralph Izard, of South Carolina, and Caleb Strong, of 
Massachusetts, were appointed on this committee.\3\
  On February 11 \4\ the committee reported in both House and Senate 
the following arrangement, which was agreed to by both Houses, the 
Senate form differing from the House form in providing for one Senate 
teller, while the House tellers were two:

  That the two Houses shall assemble in the Senate Chamber on Wednesday 
next, at 12 o'clock. That two persons be appointed tellers on the part 
of this House, to make a list of the votes as they shall be declared. 
That the result shall be delivered to the President of the Senate, who 
shall announce the state of the vote and the persons elected to both 
Houses, assembled as aforesaid, which shall be deemed a declaration of 
the persons elected President and Vice-President, and, together with a 
list of the votes, be entered on the Journal of the two Houses.

  The House adopted an order naming the two tellers.\5\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session First Congress, Journal, p. 8.
  \2\ Second session Second Congress, Journal, p. 689 (Gales & Seaton 
ed.); Annals, p. 861.
  \3\ Annals, p. 641; Journal, p. 694.
  \4\ Journal, p. 699; Annals, pp. 873, 644.
  \5\ Journal, p. 700.
Sec. 1930
  On February 13 \1\ a message from the Senate by Mr. Otis, their 
Secretary, announced that a President of the Senate \2\ was elected for 
the sole purpose of opening the certificates, and counting the votes of 
the several States, in the choice of a President and Vice-President of 
the United States; and that the Senate was ready, in the Senate 
Chamber, to attend with the House on that occasion.
  The House resolved.

that Mr. Speaker, attended by the House, do now withdraw to the Senate 
Chamber, for the purpose expressed in the said message.

  The votes having been counted, the Vice-President announced:

  George Washington unanimously elected President of the United States 
for the period of four years, to commence with the 4th day of March 
next; and John Adams elected, by a plurality of votes, Vice-President 
of the United States for the same period, to commence the 4th day of 
March next.\3\

  1930. Proceedings at the electoral count of 1797.
  At the first electoral count, held in the Hall of the House, the 
President of the Senate sat at the right of the Speaker, and the 
Senators on the right of the Hall.
  Instance wherein a Vice-President, who was also the President-elect, 
presided at the electoral count.
  On January 31, 1797,\4\ the Senate adopted a resolution agreeing to a 
resolution providing for a joint committee--

to ascertain and report a mode of examining the votes for President and 
Vice-President, and of notifying the persons elected of their election, 
and for regulating the time, place, and manner of administering the 
oath of office to the President.

  The House concurred, and thereafter the resolutions were adopted in 
form like those agreed to in 1794, except that the Hall of the House of 
Representatives,\5\ instead of the Senate Chamber, was designated as 
the place of meeting.\6\
  The tellers were appointed by resolution of the House.\7\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Journal, p. 701; Annals, p. 874.
  \2\ The Annals (p. 645) indicate that the Vice-President opened and 
presented the certificates, and the Senate Journal (pp. 485-486, Gales 
& Seaton ed.), shows surely that he did.
  \3\ John Adams was both Vice-President and Vice-President-elect.
  \4\ Second session Fourth Congress, Annals, p. 1535.
  \5\ On February 2, 1881 (Third session Forty-sixth Congress, Record, 
pp. 1129-1141), during discussion of the resolution providing for the 
electoral count of 1881, a lengthy discussion was occasioned by a 
proposition made in the Senate by Mr. John J. Ingalls, of Kansas, that 
the count be held in the Senate Chamber. It was urged that the Senate 
Chamber was the rightful place for the count, that it was necessary in 
having the count in the Hall of the House to transport valuable 
records--a transportation reputed to have been attended with some peril 
in the stormy days of the count of 1876--from the Senate to the House, 
and that in reality the Hall of the Senate was large enough. But Allen 
G. Thurman, of Ohio, urged that the practice of seventy-odd years--
during which no Senator had been maltreated or assaulted in going to 
and returning from the House--should not be changed. (Record, p. 1131.)
  The Senate did not agree to the motion of Mr. Ingalls.
  \6\ Journal, pp. 668, 676, 677, 678; Annals, pp. 1538, 2057, 2063.
  \7\ Journal, p. 678.
                                                            Sec. 1931
  On February 8 \1\ the House directed the Clerk to inform the Senate 
that the House was ready to ``attend them in opening the 
certificates,'' etc.
  The Senate thereupon attended, the President of the Senate taking his 
seat on the right-hand of the Speaker, and the Senators seating 
themselves on the right-hand side of the Chamber.
  The President of the Senate \2\ addressed the ``gentlemen of the 
Senate and of the House of Representatives,'' stating the purposes of 
the meeting, and stating that he had received packets containing the 
votes of all the States, and had received duplicate returns by post 
from all the States but Kentucky. It had been the practice heretofore, 
on similar occasions, to begin with the returns from the State at one 
end of the United States, and to proceed to the other. He should, 
therefore, do the same at this time. Mr. Adams then presented the 
packet from Tennessee.
  The count having been completed the President of the Senate announced 
the State of the vote, giving the total votes for each candidate, and 
then declared: \3\

  That John Adams, of Massachusetts, was duly elected President of the 
United States, for four years, to commence on the 4th of March next; 
and that Thomas Jefferson, of Virginia, was duly elected Vice-President 
of the United States for the like term of four years, to commence on 
the said 4th day of March next,

concluding in the following words:

  And may the Sovereign of the Universe, the ordainer of civil 
government on earth, for the preservation of liberty, justice, and 
peace among men, enable both to discharge the duties of their offices 
conformably to the Constitution of the United States, with 
conscientious diligence, punctuality, and perseverance.

  The President of the Senate and Members of the Senate then retired.
  1931. Proceedings of the electoral count of 1801.
  In 1801 the electoral count took place in accordance with 
arrangements made separately by the two Houses, but identical in 
essential particulars.
  On January 22, 1801,\4\ the House appointed the usual committee to 
join such committee as the Senate might appoint for arranging the 
preliminaries of the electoral count. On January 27 \5\ a message from 
the Senate announced that that body had agreed to the proposition of 
the House and had appointed their committee. On February 9 \6\ Mr. John 
Rutledge, of South Carolina, from the committee on the part of the 
House reported that the committee of the two Houses had taken the 
subject under consideration, but had come to no conclusion. Very soon 
thereafter a message was received from the Senate announcing:

  The Senate will be ready to receive the House of Representatives in 
the Senate Chamber, on Wednesday next, at 12 o'clock, for the purpose 
of being present at the opening and counting of the votes for President 
of the United States. The Senate have appointed a teller on their part, 
to make a list of the votes for President of the United States as they 
shall be declared.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Journal, p. 685; Annals, 2095.
  \2\ John Adams, of Massachusetts, Vice-President. The Annals show 
that Mr. Adams presided and opened the certificates.
  \3\ Journal, p. 686.
  \4\ Second session Sixth Congress, Journal, p. 770 (Gales & Seaton 
ed.); Annals, p. 941.
  \5\ Journal, p. 776.
  \6\ Journal, p. 789; Annals, pp. 742, 1007.
Sec. 1932
  This message was the announcement of the fact that on February 9 the 
Senate on motion, had agreed to this resolution:

  Resolved, That the Senate will be ready to receive the House of 
Representatives in the Senate Chamber on Wednesday next, at 12 o'clock, 
for the purpose of being present at the opening and counting the votes 
for President of the United States. That one person be appointed a 
teller on the part of the Senate, to make a list of the votes for 
President of the United States as they shall be declared; that the 
result shall be delivered to the President of the Senate, who shall 
announce the state of the vote, which shall be entered on the journals, 
and if it shah appear that a choice has been made, agreeably to the 
Constitution, such entry on the journals shall be deemed a sufficient 
declaration thereof.

  On February 10 \1\ the House agreed to a resolution of which the 
latter portion was identical with the latter portion of the Senate 
resolution, but with the first portion in the following terms:

  Resolved, That the House will attend in the chamber of the Senate, on 
Wednesday next, at 12 o'clock, for the purpose of being present at the 
opening and counting of the votes for President and Vice-President of 
the United States; that Mr. Rutledge and Mr. Nicholas be appointed 
tellers, to act jointly with the teller on the part of the Senate to 
make a list of votes, etc.

  On February 11,\1\ at the hour named, Mr. Speaker, attended by the 
House, went to the Senate Chamber, and the President of the Senate, in 
the presence of the two Houses, proceeded to open the certificates of 
the electors of the several States, beginning with the State of New 
Hampshire. The votes having been read and tabulated, the President of 
the Senate announced the state of the votes to both Houses, and 
declared that Thomas Jefferson, of Virginia, and Aaron Burr, of New 
York, having the greatest number and a majority of the votes of all the 
electors appointed, and being equal, it remained for the House of 
Representatives to determine the choice.
  The two Houses then separated; and the House of Representatives, 
being returned to their Chamber, proceeded in the manner prescribed by 
the Constitution to the choice of a President of the United States.
  1932. Proceedings at the electoral count of 1805.--On February 12, 
1805,\2\ the House passed a resolution authorizing a committee to join 
such committee as should be appointed by the Senate to ascertain and 
report a mode of examining the electoral votes, etc. The Senate 
disagreed to that proposition, and adopted a resolution like that 
adopted by the Senate in 1801, when propositions for joint action had 
failed. The House being informed that the Senate declined to take joint 
action, adopted on their part, on February 13, a resolution like that 
adopted under similar circumstances by the House in 1801.
  On February 13, the Speaker, attended by the House, proceeded to the 
Senate Chamber, having been informed previously by message that the 
Senate was ready to receive them.
  The two Houses being assembled, the President of the Senate proceeded 
to open the certificates, and the votes were duly counted. Then the 
President of the Senate, in pursuance of the duty enjoined upon him, 
announced the state of the vote to both Houses, and declared that 
Thomas Jefferson, of Virginia, having the greatest number and a 
majority of the votes of all the electors appointed, was duly
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Journal, p. 796; Annals, p. 1022.
  \2\ Second session Eighth Congress, Journal, pp. 133, 135-137 (Gales 
& Seaton ed.); Annals, pp. 54, 55, 1192-1195.
                                                            Sec. 1933
elected President of the United States, for the term commencing on the 
fourth day of March next; and then the same declaration as to George 
Clinton, of New York, who was elected Vice-President.
  The two Houses then separated, the House of Representatives returning 
to their Chamber. The Speaker resumed the chair, and the list of votes 
of the electors as declared by the President of the Senate was read at 
the Clerk's table.
  1933. Proceedings at the electoral count of 1809.
  At the electoral count of 1809 an informality in a certificate from 
one of the States was noticed, but no action was taken in relation to 
it.
  The electoral count of 1809 \1\ was arranged with the usual 
preliminaries and forms as seen in the counts of 1813 and 1817.
  The House appointed the tellers by an order.\2\
  During the count, a Senator noted that the returns from one of the 
States appeared to be defective, the governor's certificate not being 
attached to it. Nothing further was done about it, however.\3\
  1934. Proceedings at the electoral count of 1813.--The electoral 
count of 1813 \4\ took place in accordance with the preliminaries to be 
noticed in 1817. The House and Senate adopted similar but not identical 
resolutions, like those of 1817, and the count occurred without unusual 
incident. Before the proceedings began a message was received from the 
Senate announcing that the Senate had appointed Mr. Franklin a teller, 
on their part, in place of Mr. Gaillard, who was indisposed.\5\
  1935. Proceedings at the electoral count of 1817.
  At the electoral count of 1817 objection was made by a Member of the 
House rising in his place to the counting of the vote of Indiana.
  At the electoral count of 1817 the votes of Indian were counted 
although given previous to the admission of the State to the Union.
  In 1817 it was held that an objection to the electoral vote of a 
State might not be debated or considered in the joint meeting; and the 
two Houses separated for action.
  While in joint meeting for counting the electoral vote the two Houses 
may consider no proposition and perform no business not prescribed by 
the Constitution.
  In the electoral count of 1817 the Speaker presided with the 
President of the Senate and ruled on a proposition made by a Member of 
the House.
  On February 10, 1817,\6\ Mr. Nathaniel Macon, of North Carolina, and 
Mr. Charles Tait, of Georgia, were appointed members on the part of the 
Senate to join a committee from the House ``to ascertain and report a 
mode of examining the votes for President and Vice-President of the 
United States, and of notifying
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Tenth Congress, Journal, pp. 506, 508, 512-514; 
Annals, pp. 342, 343, 1329, 1351, 1423-1426.
  \2\ Journal, p. 512.
  \3\ Annals, p. 1424.
  \4\ Second session Twelfth Congress, Journal, pp. 664, 665, 668-671; 
Annals, pp. 1015, 1020.
  \5\ Journal, p. 668.
  \6\ Second session Fourteenth Congress, Journal, p. 374 (Davis 
edition); Annals, pp. 107, 935.
Sec. 1935
the persons elected of their election.'' In the House Messrs. John G. 
Jackson, of Virginia, William Irving, of New York, and Timothy Pitkin, 
of Connecticut, were joined to the committee.
  On February 11 \1\ Mr. Jackson reported to the House this resolution:

  Resolved, That the two Houses shall assemble in the chamber of the 
House of Representatives on Wednesday next at 12 o'clock; that two 
persons be appointed tellers on the part of this House to make a list 
of the votes as they shall be declared; that the result shall be 
delivered by the President of the Senate, who shall announce the state 
of the vote and the persons elected to the two Houses assembled as 
aforesaid, which shall be deemed a declaration of the persons elected 
President and Vice-President, and together with a list of votes be 
entered on the Journals of the two Houses.

  The resolution reported in the Senate \2\ by Mr. Macon and adopted 
there was in general terms the same as that of the House, but provided 
that ``one person be appointed a teller on the part of the Senate,'' 
and made no provision for House tellers, which were provided for in the 
House resolution.
  The manner of appointing the House tellers is not indicated.
  It was,

  Ordered, That when the Members of the Senate appear to-morrow in the 
chamber of this House the President of the Senate shall be conducted to 
the chair by the Speaker; and that the Clerk of the House inform the 
Senate of these proceedings.\3\

  On February 12 \4\ the House announced by message to the Senate its 
readiness to receive them in order to proceed with the count, and the 
Senate attended and took seats in the House, the President of the 
Senate being received by the Speaker at the chair of the House, the 
Speaker taking a seat beside him.
  The count having proceeded, and the certificates of all the States 
except Indiana having been opened and read, and the President of the 
Senate being about to open the votes of that State for the purpose of 
having them counted, Mr. John W. Taylor, one of the Representatives of 
the State of New York, rose and objected to the same, and stated that 
in his opinion the votes of the electors of the said State of Indiana 
for President and Vice-President of the United States ought not to be 
received.
  The Annals state \5\ that Mr. Taylor, in objecting, addressed himself 
to the Speaker of the House, and that, when he proposed to state his 
reasons, the Speaker \6\ interrupted him and said that the two Houses 
had met for a specific constitutional duty, and while so acting in 
joint meeting could consider no proposition or perform any business not 
prescribed by the Constitution.
  Senator Joseph B. Varnum,\7\ of Massachusetts, addressing the 
President of the Senate, expressed his concurrence in the propriety of 
what had been stated by the Speaker, and, for the purpose of allowing 
the House of Representatives to deliberate on the question, he moved 
that the Senate withdraw to their Chamber.
  This motion was agreed to, and the Senate withdrew.
  In the Senate a proposition was made that the vote of Indiana ought 
to be
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Journal, p. 381; Annals, p. 938.
  \2\ Annals, p. 111.
  \3\ Journal, p. 381.
  \4\ Journal, pp. 385-389; Annals, pp. 943-950.
  \5\ Annals, p. 944.
  \6\ Henry Clay, of Kentucky, Speaker.
  \7\ Speaker of Tenth and Eleventh Congresses.
                                                            Sec. 1936
counted; but the action of the House being announced before a 
conclusion was reached the Senate concluded that action on their part 
was unnecessary.\1\
  In the House a resolution was submitted by Mr. Solomon P. Sharp, of 
Kentucky, in these terms:

  Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the votes of the electors 
for the State of Indiana for a President and Vice-President of the 
United States were properly and legally given and ought to be 
counted.\2\

  Mr. John W. Taylor, of New York, moved to substitute for the text of 
the above the following:

  That the votes of the electors of the State of Indiana for President 
and Vice-President of the United States, having been given previous to 
the admission of that State into the Union, ought not to be received 
and counted.

  After debate the resolution was postponed indefinitely.
  The House then ordered that a message be sent to the Senate to inform 
them that the House was again ready to receive them and continue 
opening the certificates and counting the votes of the electors, etc.
  The Senate having again attended, the Speaker informed them that the 
House had not seen it necessary to come to any resolution or take any 
order on the subject which had produced the separation of the two 
Houses.\3\
  The President of the Senate then opened the certificate of the State 
of Indiana, and the votes were counted.
  The tellers then reported, and the President of the Senate made 
report of the state of the vote and announced the election of James 
Monroe, of Virginia, as President, and Daniel D. Tompkins, of New York, 
as Vice-President.
  1936. Proceedings at the electoral count of 1821.
  At the electoral count of 1821 arrangement was made for an 
alternative announcement in case objection should be made to the 
electoral vote of Missouri, which would not change the result.
  At the electoral count of 1821 the Members of the House arose and 
stood uncovered when the Senate entered the Hall.
  At the electoral count of 1821 a committee was appointed to receive 
the President and Members of the Senate at the door and conduct them to 
their seats.
  Committees of the two Houses acting jointly to devise a plan for the 
electoral count of 1821, reported different propositions, whereat 
misunderstandings arose.
  The two Houses, by simple and separate resolutions, sometimes appoint 
committees to confer and report.
  On February 6, 1821,\4\ in the Senate, Mr. James Barbour, of 
Virginia, presented a resolution that a committee be appointed ``to 
join such committee as may be
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Annals, p. 945 (footnote).
  \2\ Question was made as to the concurrent form of this resolution, 
because it gave to the Senate a participation in the power; but it was 
urged on the other hand that it was necessary to take the sense of the 
two Houses. Annals, p. 946.
  \3\ Annals, p. 949.
  \4\ Second session Sixteenth Congress, Annals, pp. 267, 288.
Sec. 1936
appointed by the House of Representatives, to ascertain and report a 
mode of examining the votes for President and Vice-President of the 
United States, and of notifying the persons elected of their 
election.'' This resolution was agreed to on February 7, and Messrs. 
Barbour and Nathaniel Macon, of North Carolina, were appointed the 
committee on the part of the Senate.
  In the House, on February 8,\1\ this resolution was agreed to, and 
Messrs. Henry Clay, of Kentucky; John Sergeant, of Pennsylvania, and 
Solomon Van Rensselaer, of New York, were appointed of the committee on 
the part of the House.
  On February 13 \2\ Mr. Barbour reported in the Senate from the joint 
committee two resolutions, the first being as follows:

  Resolved, That the two Houses shall assemble in the Chamber of the 
House of Representatives on Wednesday next, at 12 o'clock, and the 
President of the Senate shall be the presiding officer; that one person 
be appointed a teller on the part of the Senate to make a list of the 
votes as they shall be declared; that the result shall be delivered to 
the President of the Senate, who shall announce the state of the vote, 
and the persons elected, to the two Houses assembled as aforesaid; 
which shall be deemed a declaration of the persons elected President 
and Vice-President of the United States, and, together with a list of 
the votes, be entered on the Journals of the two Houses.

  This resolution was agreed to by the Senate and was transmitted to 
the House.\3\ But in the House \4\ the Senate text was not considered; 
but Mr. Clay, from the joint committee, reported a resolution similar 
in some respects, but differing very essentially in others:

  Resolved, That the two Houses shall assemble in the Chamber of the 
House of Representatives, on Wednesday, the 14th of February, 1821, at 
12 o'clock, and the President of the Senate shall be the presiding 
officer of the Senate, seated on the right of the Speaker of the House, 
who shall be the presiding officer of the House; that two persons be 
appointed tellers on the part of the House, to make a list of the 
votes, etc.

  The remainder of the resolution follows verbatim the similar portion 
of the Senate resolution.
  In the debate over the adoption of this resolution the features of 
allowing the Speaker a place as joint presiding officer and omitting to 
allow a teller to the Senate do not seem to have been noticed. Later, 
during the proceedings of the count, the feature relating to the 
Speaker was discussed, and the debates \5\ have this explanation of the 
change made in the resolution from the form adopted by the Senate:

  This alteration was made because it was known that the House of 
Representatives would not have agreed to the other course, and a 
collision might have arisen between the two Houses. It may be added 
that the Senate were not aware, when they came into the Hall, of the 
change of the arrangement, but supposed it to stand as they had voted 
it. Their retirement from the Chamber arose from the President of the 
Senate having learned these facts after he was seated in his place in 
the Hall. He would otherwise, it is supposed, have gone on to proclaim 
the result immediately after Mr. Livermore's objection, as prescribed 
in the resolution.

  At the time he presented the resolution Mr. Clay explained \6\ that--

as convenience rendered it necessary for the Senate to meet this House 
here in its own Hall, it was due that body, by courtesy and propriety, 
that the President should be invited to preside, he being the officer 
designated by the Constitution to perform a certain duty appertaining 
to the occasion which called the two Houses together.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Journal, p. 206; Annals, p. 1058.
  \2\ Annals, pp. 341, 342.
  \3\ Journal, p. 230.
  \4\ Journal, p. 230; Annals, pp. 1147, 1148.
  \5\ Annals, p. 1162.
  \6\ Annals, p. 1147.
                                                            Sec. 1937
  The resolution was agreed to by the House.
  The second resolution was as follows in both the House and Senate 
forms: \1\

  Resolved, That if any objection be made to the votes of Missouri, and 
the counting or omitting to count which shall not essentially change 
the result of the election, in that case they shall be reported by the 
President of the Senate in the following manner: Were the votes of 
Missouri to be counted the result would be, for AB, for President of 
the United States ------ votes. If not counted, for AB, for President 
of the United States ------ votes. But, in either event, AB is elected 
President of the United States; and in the same manner for Vice-
President.

  Missouri had not been formally admitted to the Union; and this 
resolution was debated at length in both Houses. It was finally agreed 
to in both Houses, the vote in the House being yeas 90, nays 67.
  The records do not indicate by what method the tellers on the part of 
the House were appointed.\2\
  On February 14 \3\ the usual message having been sent to the Senate 
to inform them of the readiness of the House to proceed with the count, 
Mr. Clay proposed informally \4\ and the House, by general consent, 
determined that the Members should rise and stand uncovered to receive 
the Senate, and that seats on the right hand of the Chair should be set 
apart for the Senators.
  Mr. Clay offered this resolution:

  Resolved, That a committee be appointed to receive the President and 
Members of the Senate at the door of this House, and to conduct the 
President of the Senate to the Speaker's chair, and the Senators to the 
seats assigned for their use.

  Objection being made on the ground that it had been usual for the 
Speaker to receive the President of the Senate and invite him to a seat 
beside him, Mr. Clay said it was true that the resolution proposed an 
innovation, but his experience in the chair had convinced him that the 
regulation would obviate embarrassments.
  The resolution was then agreed to, and Mr. Clay and Mr. Mark L. Hill, 
of Massachusetts, were appointed the committee.
  1937. Proceedings at the electoral count of 1821, continued.
  In 1821 the electoral vote of Missouri was objected to on the ground 
that the State was not in the Union, but as the vote was not material 
to the result the objection was tabled.
  In the electoral counts of 1817 and 1821, when a Member of the House 
objected to the electoral vote of a State, it appears that the House 
alone acted on the objection.
  In the electoral count of 1821 all debate and proceedings not 
prescribed in the joint rule were held out of order in the joint 
meeting.
  At the electoral count of 1821 the Speaker was made, so far as the 
action of the House could control, presiding officer of the House 
portion of the joint meeting, and he did in fact so preside.
  The Senate having attended, the count proceeded with the usual forms 
until
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Journal, pp. 230, 231; Annals, pp. 342, 1147-1152.
  \2\ Journal, p. 232.
  \3\ Journal, pp. 232, 233; Annals, pp. 1154-1166.
  \4\ Annals, p. 1154.
Sec. 1937
the votes of the electors of Missouri were announced by the President 
of the Senate and handed to the tellers.
  Thereupon Mr. Arthur Livermore, of New Hampshire, a Representative, 
rose and--

objected to the counting of any votes given by Missouri for President 
and Vice-President of the United States of America, because Missouri is 
not a State in this Union.

  A motion was then made by a Member of the Senate that the Senate do 
now withdraw to its Chamber; and, the question having been put, was 
decided in the affirmative, and the Senate retired.
  It does not appear that the Senate took any action on the 
objection.\1\
  In the House Mr. John Floyd, of Virginia submitted this resolution:

  Resolved, That Missouri is one of the States of this Union, and her 
votes for President and Vice-President of the United States ought to be 
received and counted.

  After lengthy debates \2\ the resolution was, on motion of Mr. Clay, 
laid on the table.
  Then a resolution was sent to the Senate informing them of the 
readiness of the House to continue the enumeration of the votes of the 
electors, etc.
  The Senate having appeared and taken seats, the President of the 
Senate, in the presence of both Houses, proceeded to open the 
certificate of the electors of the State of Missouri, which he 
delivered to the tellers, by whom it was read and recorded.
  And the votes of all the States having been thus counted, registered, 
and the lists thereof compared, they were delivered to the President of 
the Senate, by whom they were read.
  The President of the Senate having announced the state of the vote, 
in accordance with the directions of the resolution, and being about to 
declare the persons elected, Mr. Floyd, of Virginia, addressed the 
Chair, and inquired whether the votes of Missouri were or were not 
counted.
  Mr. John Randolph, of Virginia, also arose and was addressing the 
Chair, when the Speaker \3\ pronounced Mr. Randolph to be out of order 
and invited him to take his seat.
  There was a demand from the floor that Mr. Randolph be allowed to 
proceed, and Mr. Floyd asked of the Chair whether or not he was in 
order.
  The Speaker determined that he was not in order at this time, the 
only business at the present time being that prescribed by the rules.
  Order being restored, the President of the Senate proceeded to 
declare the persons elected President and Vice-President of the United 
States--James Monroe, of Virginia, and Daniel D. Tompkins, of New York.
  As the President of the Senate concluded, Mr. Randolph addressed the 
Chair, but was required to take his seat.
  On motion of a Member of the Senate, the Senate retired.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Sixteenth Congress, Journal of Senate p. 190. Also 
in 1817 when a Member of the House objected to the vote of Indiana the 
Senate concluded that action on its part was unnecessary.
  \2\ Annals, pp. 1154-1163.
  \3\ John W. Taylor, of New York, Speaker.
                                                            Sec. 1938
  The House being called to order,\1\ Mr. Randolph offered these 
resolutions:

  Resolved, That the electoral votes of the State of Missouri have this 
day been counted, and do constitute a part of the majority of 231 votes 
given for President and of 218 votes given for Vice-President,
  Resolved, That the whole number of electors appointed and of votes 
given for President and Vice-President has not been announced by the 
presiding officer of the Senate and House of Representatives, agreeably 
to the provision of the Constitution of the United States, and that 
therefore the proceeding has been irregular and illegal.

  The resolutions went over to the succeeding day, when the House 
declined to consider them.
  1938. Proceedings at the electoral count of 1825.
  The electoral college having failed to choose a President of the 
United States in 1825, the House proceeded to elect in accordance with 
the Constitution.
  On February 8, 1825,\2\ the report of the joint committee appointed 
``to ascertain and report a mode of examining the votes for President 
and Vice-President of the United States, and of notifying the persons 
elected of their election,'' was made in the Senate in form of the 
following resolution:

  Resolved, That the two Houses shall assemble in the Chamber of the 
House of Representatives on Wednesday, the 9th day of February, 1825, 
at 12 o'clock; that one person be appointed teller on the part of the 
Senate, and two persons be appointed tellers on the part of the House 
to make a list of the votes as they shall be declared; that the result 
shall be delivered to the President of the Senate, who shall announce 
to the two Houses, assembled as aforesaid, the state of the vote and 
the person or persons elected, if it shall appear that a choice hath 
been made agreeably to the Constitution of the United States; which 
annunciation shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the election 
of the person or persons elected, and, together with a list of the 
votes, shall be entered on the Journals of the two Houses.

  It was stated in the course of the discussion that this was precisely 
the resolution agreed to on similar occasions from 1805 to 1817, 
inclusive. The committee on the part of the Senate would have preferred 
in some respects a different arrangement, but they were overruled by 
the committee on the part of the House.
  Senator John H. Eaton, of Tennessee, proposed this amendment:

  If any objection shall arise to the vote or votes of any State, it 
shall be filed in writing and entered on the Journals of the Senate and 
House of Representatives; but the two Houses shall not separate until 
the entire votes are counted and reported, which report shall be liable 
to be controlled and altered by the decision to be made by the two 
Houses, after their separation, relative to any objections that may be 
made and entered on the Journals; provided no objection taken shall be 
considered valid unless concurred in by the two Houses.

  Senators Robert Y. Hayne, of South Carolina, and Martin Van Buren, of 
New York, opposed this proposition on the ground that the House had 
failed to act on the bill passed at the preceding session to arrange 
for all possible contingencies, and it was now too late to take action. 
So the amendment was disagreed to, and the resolution as reported was 
agreed to.
  In the House \3\ the same day the resolution was also agreed to.
  On February 9,\4\ after the message had been sent to inform the 
Senate of the readiness of the House to proceed with the count, the 
Senate appeared, and the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Journal, pp. 235, 239; Annals, pp. 1166, 1167.
  \2\ Second session, Eighteenth Congress, Debates, p. 515.
  \3\ Journal, p. 216, Debates, p. 516.
  \4\ Journal, pp. 219-221; Debates, p. 526.
Sec. 1939
President of the Senate ``was invited to a seat on the right hand of 
the Speaker of the House.'' The Senators were assigned seats together 
in front of the Speaker's chair. The tellers took seats at the Clerk's 
table.
  The President of the Senate having opened the packets, and the 
certificates having been read, the results were declared and tabulated.
  The tellers then left the Clerk's table and presented themselves in 
front of the Speaker, and one of their number delivered the report of 
the votes given, which was then handed to the President of the Senate, 
who again read it to the two Houses.
  This announcement of the state of the vote showed that Andrew 
Jackson, of Tennessee, had received 99 votes; John Quincy Adams, of 
Massachusetts, 84; William H. Crawford, of Georgia, 41; and Henry Clay, 
of Kentucky, 37. The President of the Senate \1\ then announced--

that, neither of the said persons having received a majority of the 
votes of the electors appointed by the several States to vote for 
President of the United States, it therefore devolved upon the House of 
Representatives of the United States to choose a President of the 
United States, whose term of service is to commence on the 4th day of 
March next, from the three highest on the list of those voted for by 
the electors for President of the United States; which three he 
declared to be Andrew Jackson, of Tennessee, John Quincy Adams, of 
Massachusetts, and William H. Crawford, of Georgia.

  The vote for Vice-President was also announced, and John C. Calhoun, 
having ``a majority of the whole number of the votes of the electors 
appointed in the several States,'' etc., was declared duly elected.
  1939. Proceedings at the electoral count of 1829.--The electoral 
count of 1829 occurred in the usual way, the preliminaries \2\ having 
been arranged by a joint committee. It does not appear how the tellers 
on the part of the House were appointed.\3\
  On February 11 \4\ the usual message was sent to the Senate informing 
them that the House was ready to receive them and to proceed with the 
count. The Senate presently appeared, the Vice-President at their head, 
preceded by the Secretary and Sergeant-at-Arms of the Senate. The Vice-
President took his place at the right of the Speaker, the Senators 
being seated in the area before the desk. The tellers sat at the 
Clerk's desk.
  The Vice-President presented first the returns from Maine. One 
package had come by mail and the other by express, and the packets had 
been certified by the delegation from Maine to contain the votes of 
that State for President and Vice President.\5\
  The votes having been tabulated the teller on the part of the Senate 
read the report, and thereupon the Vice President announced the state 
of the vote and the persons elected: Andrew Jackson, of Tennessee, 
President, and John C. Calhoun, of South Carolina, Vice-President.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ John Gaillard, of South Carolina.
  \2\ Second session Twentieth Congress, Journal, pp. 237, 243, 258; 
Debates, pp. 309, 322.
  \3\ Journal, p. 258.
  \4\ Journal, pp. 272, 273.
  \5\ Debates, p. 350.
                                                            Sec. 1940
  1940. Proceedings at the electoral count of 1833.--The electoral 
count of 1833 \1\ took place in accordance with a resolution in the 
phraseology \2\ of the resolution used in 1825 and 1829, abandoned in 
1837 and copied for the last time in 1845. The preliminaries of this 
count were arranged in the manner usual when no unusual questions were 
presented.
  It does not appear whether or not the Speaker appointed the tellers.
  1941. Proceedings at the electoral count of 1837.
  In 1837 a joint committee of the two Houses found that several 
electors were disqualified by reason of holding offices of trust or 
profit under the United States at the time of their election.
  In 1837 the votes of certain disqualified Presidential electors were 
counted, their number not being sufficient to affect the result and 
there being doubt as to what tribunal should pass on the 
qualifications.
  At the electoral count of 1837 the vote of Michigan, which was not 
essential in the result, was given an alternative announcement, as the 
State had not been admitted to the Union at the time the vote was cast.
  After the electoral count of 1837 had shown no choice for Vice-
President, the Senate proceeded to elect, in accordance with the 
Constitutional requirement.
  In the earlier practice the House, as the hour for the electoral 
count approached, sent a message to the Senate announcing readiness to 
receive the latter body.
  On February 1, 1837,\3\ the House received from the Senate the 
following resolution:

  Resolved, That a committee be appointed, to join such committee as 
may be appointed by the House of Representatives, to ascertain and 
report a mode of examining the votes for President and Vice-President 
of the United States, and of notifying the persons elected of their 
election; and also to inquire into the expediency of ascertaining 
whether any votes were given at the recent election contrary to the 
prohibition contained in the second section of the second article of 
the Constitution; and, if any such votes were given, what ought to be 
done with them; and whether any, and what, provision ought to be made 
for securing the faithful observance in future of that section of the 
Constitution.

  The House agreed to the resolution, and the joint committee was made 
up as follows: Senators Felix Grundy, of Tennessee; Henry Clay, of 
Kentucky; Silas Wright, Jr., of New York; Representatives Francis 
Thomas, of Maryland; Churchill C. Cambreleng, of New York; John Reed, 
of Massachusetts; Henry W. Connor, of North Carolina, and Francis S. 
Lyon, of Alabama.
  On February 4 Mr. Thomas, in the House, submitted a report,\4\ from 
the joint committee:

  It appears [says the report] that Isaac Waldron, who was an elector 
in New Hampshire, was, at the time of his appointment as elector, 
president of a deposit bank at Portsmouth, and was appointed and acting 
as pension agent without compensation under the authority of the United 
States; that in two cases persons of the same names with the 
individuals who were appointed and acted as electors in the State of 
North Carolina held the offices of deputy postmasters under the General 
Government.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Twenty-second Congress, Journal, pp. 262, 278, 
279, 329; Debates, pp. 1722, 1723.
  \2\ Journal. p. 279.
  \3\ Second session Twenty-fourth Congress, Journal, p. 326; Globe, p. 
146.
  \4\ House Report No. 191, second session Twenty-fourth Congress.
Sec. 1941
It also appears that in New Hampshire there is one case, in Connecticut 
there is one case, and in North Carolina there is one case, in which, 
from the report of the Postmaster-General, it is probable that at the 
time of the appointment of electors in these States, respectively, the 
electors or persons of the same names were deputy postmasters. The 
committee have not ascertained, whether the electors are the same 
individuals who held, or are presumed to have held, the offices of 
deputy postmasters at the time when the appointment of the electors was 
made; and this is the less to be regretted, as it is confidently 
believed that no change in the result of the election of either the 
President or Vice-President would be affected by the ascertainment of 
the fact in either way, as five or six votes only would in any event be 
abstracted from the whole number; for the committee can not adopt the 
opinion entertained by some, that a single illegal vote would vitiate 
the whole electoral vote of the college of electors in which it was 
given, particularly in cases where the vote of the whole college has 
been given for the same persons.
  The committee are of opinion that the second section of the second 
article of the Constitution, which declares that ``no Senator or 
Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under 
the United States, shall be appointed an elector,'' ought to be carried 
in its whole spirit into rigid execution, in order to prevent officers 
of the General Government from bringing their official power to 
influence the elections of President and Vice-President of the United 
States. This provision of the Constitution, it is believed, excludes 
and disqualifies deputy postmasters from the appointment of electors, 
and the disqualification relates to the time of the appointment; and 
that a resignation of the office of deputy postmaster after his 
appointment as elector would not entitle him to vote as elector under 
the Constitution.
  Should a case occur in which it became necessary to ascertain and 
determine upon the qualifications of electors of President and Vice-
President of the United States, the important question would be 
presented, what tribunal would, under the Constitution, be competent to 
decide? Whether the respective colleges of electors in the different 
States should decide upon the qualifications of their own members, or 
Congress should exercise the power, is a question which the committee 
are of opinion ought to be settled by a permanent provision upon the 
subject.
  The committee, at present and in part, report the following 
resolutions:
  Resolved, That the two Houses shall assemble in the Chamber of the 
House of Representatives on Wednesday next at 12 o'clock; and the 
President of the Senate shall be the presiding officer; that one person 
be appointed a teller on the part of the Senate and two on the part of 
the House of Representatives to make a list of the votes as they shall 
be declared; that the result shall be delivered to the President of the 
Senate, who shall announce the state of the vote, and the persons 
elected, to the two Houses assembled as aforesaid; which shall be 
deemed a declaration of the persons elected President and Vice-
President of the United States; and, together with a list of votes, be 
entered on the Journals of the two Houses.
  Resolved, That in relation to the votes of Michigan, if the counting 
or omitting to count them, shall not essentially change the result of 
the election, they shall be reported by the President of the Senate in 
the following manner: Were the votes of Michigan to be counted, the 
result would be, for A. B. for President of the United States, ------ 
votes. If not counted for A. B. for President of the United States, --
---- votes. But in either event, A. B. is elected President of the 
United States. And in the same manner for Vice-President.

  On February 4 \1\ the resolutions were considered and agreed to by 
the Senate. It appears from the debate that the act admitting Michigan 
to the Union had not been passed by Congress when she voted for 
President, but had been passed before the time for the electoral count. 
Mr. Clay said that the proceeding in this case was proposed on the same 
lines as the procedure in the case of Missouri, although the case of 
Michigan was not precisely that of Missouri or of Indiana.
  On February 6 \2\ the resolutions were agreed to by the House.
  On February 8 \3\ the count occurred. Question arising as to 
procedure, the Speaker \4\ said that the usual course had heretofore 
been for the House, some short
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Globe, pp. 152, 153.
  \2\ Journal, p. 34; Globe, p. 3161.
  \3\ Journal, pp. 357-359; Globe, p. 167.
  \4\ James K. Polk, of Tennessee, Speaker.
                                                            Sec. 1941
time before the arrival of the hour, to send a message to the Senate 
informing that body that the House was in readiness to receive them and 
count the votes. The Chair stated further that, so far as he had been 
informed, the mode of receiving the Senate by the House was for the 
Members to stand uncovered. Upon every occasion of this kind, with a 
single exception, the invariable course had been to send a message to 
the Senate by the Clerk. In one instance only the message had been 
transmitted by a committee of two Members of the House, who were also 
appointed to conduct the Senate into the Hall, but that was a departure 
from the former practice.
  The message was sent to the Senate in the usual form.
  The Chair announced that seats on the right of the Speaker's chair 
had been provided for the accommodation of the Senate.
  Shortly after, the Senate entered the Hall, with the President of the 
Senate, the Hon. William R. King, of Alabama, at their head, preceded 
by the Secretary and Sergeant-at-Arms of the Senate, and were received 
at the door of the Hall and conducted to the seats assigned them by the 
Sergeant-at-Arms of the House of Representatives. The President of the 
Senate was seated at the right of the Speaker, and the tellers at the 
Clerk's desk.
  The count proceeded in the usual manner, and the President of the 
Senate announced \1\ the state of the vote for President in accordance 
with the directions of the resolution, and declared that Martin Van 
Buren, having received a majority of the whole number of the electoral 
votes, is duly elected President of the United States, etc.
  Then, having announced the state of the vote for Vice-President, the 
President of the Senate said:

  But, in either event, no person has a majority of the electoral votes 
as Vice-President of the United States, and I do, therefore, declare 
that, no person having a majority of the whole number of electoral 
votes as Vice-President of the United States, an election to that 
office has not been effected, that Richard M. Johnson, of Kentucky, and 
Francis Granger, of New York, are the two highest on the list of 
electoral votes, and that it now devolves on the Senate of the United 
States, as provided in the Constitution, from these persons to elect a 
Vice-President of the United States.

  The Senate \2\ having returned to their chamber, Mr. Felix Grundy, of 
Tennessee, presented the following:

  Whereas upon counting the electoral votes, in the presence of both 
Houses of Congress, given at the late election for President and Vice-
President of the United States, it appears that no person has received 
for the office of Vice-President of the United States a majority of the 
votes of the whole number of electors appointed, and it also appearing 
that Richard M. Johnson, of Kentucky, and Francis Granger, of New York, 
have the two highest numbers on the list of those voted for to fill the 
office of Vice-President; therefore,
  Resolved, That the Senate do now proceed to choose a Vice-President 
from the said Richard M. Johnson and Francis Granger, they having the 
two highest numbers on the list, and the manner of voting shall be as 
follows: The Secretary of the Senate shall call the names of Senators 
in alphabetical order, and each Senator will, when his name is called, 
name the person for whom he votes, and if a majority of the whole 
number of Senators shall vote for either the said Richard M. Johnson or 
Francis Granger, he shall be declared by the presiding officer of the 
Senate constitutionally elected Vice-President of the United States for 
four years, commencing on the 4th day of March, 1837.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Journal, p. 359; Globe, p. 167.
  \2\ Second session Twenty-fourth Congress, Senate Journal, pp. 229, 
230; Globe, p. 172.
Sec. 1942
  The Senate, having proceeded by unanimous consent to consider the 
resolution, concurred therein.
  And the roll having been called, it appeared that the whole number of 
votes were 49, and that of these 33 votes were given in favor of 
Richard M. Johnson, of Kentucky, and 16 votes in favor of Francis 
Granger, of New York.
  The President of the Senate thereupon declared Richard M. Johnson, of 
Kentucky, constitutionally elected Vice-President of the United States 
for four years, commencing on the 4th day of March, 1837.
  Mr. Grundy then presented and the Senate agreed to a resolution 
providing for a committee to notify Mr. Johnson of his election.
  1942. Proceedings at the electoral count of 1841.--The preliminaries 
\1\ of the electoral count of 1841 were arranged in the usual way. The 
resolution \2\ directing the mode of ascertaining the result was in the 
form used in 1837 and from 1849 to 1861, inclusive, and differed from 
the form of 1845 materially.\3\
  The resolution having been adopted in the House; it was

  Ordered, That Mr. Cushing and Mr. John W. Jones be the said tellers 
on the part of the House.\4\

  On February 10 \5\ the count took place without incident. The usual 
message was sent to the Senate informing that body that the House was 
ready to receive it and proceed in opening the certificates and 
counting the votes; the President of the Senate on arriving took his 
seat on the right of the Speaker, the tellers made out their 
tabulations in duplicate, and the announcement of the persons elected 
was made as usual.
  1943. Proceedings at the electoral count of 1845.--In the electoral 
count of 1845 the preliminaries \6\ were arranged in the usual form, 
the resolution showing for the last time, however, the following 
verbiage: \7\

  Resolved, That the two Houses will assemble in the Chamber of the 
House of Representatives on Wednesday, the 12th day of February, 1845, 
at 12 o'clock; that one person be appointed teller on the part of the 
Senate, and two persons be appointed tellers on the part of the House, 
to make a list of the votes for President and Vice-President of the 
United States, as they shall be declared; that the result be delivered 
to the President of the Senate, who will announce to the two Houses 
assembled as aforesaid the state of the vote, and the person or persons 
elected, if it shall appear that a choice hath been made, agreeably to 
the Constitution of the United States; which annunciation shall be 
deemed a sufficient declaration of the person or persons elected; and 
that the said proceedings, together with a list of the votes, be 
entered on the Journals of the two Houses.

  The House on February 7,\8\

  Ordered, That Mr. Burke and Mr. Joseph R. Ingersoll be the said 
tellers on the part of the House.

  The count took place on February 12 without incident.\9\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Twenty-sixth Congress, Journal, pp. 216, 220, 225, 
226; Globe, pp. 137, 140.
  \2\ Journal, p. 225; Globe, p. 140.
  \3\ See section 1943 of this work.
  \4\ Journal, p. 226.
  \5\ Journal, pp. 251, 253; Globe, pp. 159, 160.
  \6\ Second session Twenty-eighth Congress, Journal, p. 322.
  \7\ Journal, p. 343; Globe, pp. 259, 260.
  \8\ Journal, p. 343.
  \9\ Journal, pp. 371, 372; Globe, p. 277.
                                                            Sec. 1944
  1944. Proceedings at the electoral count of 1849.
  At the electoral count of 1849 the Vice-President ruled that in the 
joint meeting no other motion or proceeding than that prescribed by the 
Constitution was in order.
  At the electoral count of 1849 the Speaker appointed the tellers on 
the part of the House without authority expressly given.
  A teller appointed for the electoral count may be excused by 
authority of the House.
  The preliminaries \1\ of the electoral count of 1849 were arranged in 
the usual manner. The tellers were appointed on the part of the House, 
apparently without express permission given to the Speaker by the 
House.\2\
  One of the tellers, Mr. Washington Hunt, of New York, at his request, 
was excused by the House, and Mr. Washington Barrow, of Tennessee, was 
appointed.\3\
  On February 14,\4\ after a message had been sent in the usual form by 
the House, the Senate appeared and the joint assembly was duly 
organized.
  The returns of the State of Maine were first opened, read, and 
recorded.
  Thereupon Mr. Alexander H. Stephens, of Georgia, a Member of the 
House, suggested that the reading at length of the returns from each 
State be dispensed with.
  The Vice-President \5\ stated that no motion was in order, and no 
other mode of proceeding could be adopted but that pointed out by the 
Constitution of the United States; but that the teller might abridge 
the reports so far as to give merely the results of the electoral 
ballotings of each State.
  1945. Proceedings at the electoral count of 1853.
  For the electoral count of 1853 the House authorized the Speaker to 
appoint the tellers.
  At the electoral count of 1853 the Senators and officers 
participating were seated with especial care as to order.
  On January 31, 1853,\6\ steps were taken in the Senate which resulted 
in the appointment of a joint committee on the part of the House and 
Senate to ``ascertain and report a mode of examining the votes for 
President and Vice-President of the United States, and of notifying the 
persons elected of their election.'' This committee later reported the 
usual resolution,\7\ which was agreed to by the two Houses. The 
Speaker, on motion put and carried,\8\ was authorized to appoint the 
tellers on the part of the House.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ The resolution was changed quite materially from the old form of 
the count four years previous and took the form which it retained until 
1865. The committee this year were: Senators, John M. Clayton, of 
Delaware, Jefferson Davis, of Mississippi, and John Davis, of 
Massachusetts, and Representatives Hunt, Barrow, McClelland, Truman 
Smith, and Harmanson. The records do not indicate the reasons for the 
change. For the full form of this resolution, see the proceedings of 
the electoral count of 1861, section 1947 of this chapter.
  \2\ Second session Thirtieth Congress, Journal, p. 390.
  \3\ Journal, p. 409; Globe, p. 491.
  \4\ Journal, pp. 442, 443; Globe, p. 534.
  \5\ George M. Dallas, of Pennsylvania, Vice-President.
  \6\ Second session Thirty-second Congress, Journal, pp. 211, 213; 
Globe, pp. 450, 459.
  \7\ Journal, pp. 233, 234; Globe, pp. 499, 511.
  \8\ Journal, p. 234; Globe, p. 511.
Sec. 1946
  On February 9,\1\ the House voted that a message be sent to the 
Senate informing that body that it was ready to receive it for the 
purpose of the electoral count, and at 12.30 p. m. the Senate, preceded 
by Hon. D. R. Atchison, its President pro tempore, and its officers, 
entered the Hall of the House. The President pro tempore having been 
conducted to the Chair, the Speaker of the House took a seat on his 
left, and the Senators occupied the seats assigned them, in the area 
fronting the Clerk's desk. The Sergeants-at-Arms of the two Houses 
occupied seats on the platform, at the right and left of the Chair. The 
tellers took their seats at the Clerk's desk, and were assisted on the 
right by the Secretary of the Senate and on the left by the Clerk of 
the House. Subordinate clerks of the Senate and House were seated at a 
table in front of the Clerk's desk.\2\
  The count proceeded without incident, and at the close, by direction 
of the President pro tempore, the Senate retired.
  The Senate having returned to its Chamber, Mr. R. M. T. Hunter, of 
Virginia, teller on the part of the Senate, reported,\3\ by instruction 
of the tellers, resolutions providing for notification of the 
candidates. In the House Mr. George W. Jones, of Tennessee, one of the 
House tellers, offered as ``from the joint committee heretofore 
appointed on that subject'' the resolutions of notification.\4\
  1946. Proceedings of the electoral count of 1857.
  A difficulty was caused during the electoral count of 1857 by the 
vote of Wisconsin, which was not cast on the day prescribed by law.
  During the electoral count of 1857 the President pro tempore held 
that the joint meeting might not pass on the validity of the vote of a 
State.
  During the electoral count of 1857 it was held that no vote could be 
taken in the joint meeting, and that no motion calling for a vote was 
in order.
  During the electoral count of 1857, a question arising as to the 
electoral vote of Wisconsin, a Senator moved and the Senate voted to 
retire to its own Chamber, whence it did not return.
  The joint committee which arranged for the electoral count of 1857 
consisted of a larger number of Representatives than Senators, as had 
been the practice previously in reference to similar committees.
  The House authorized the Speaker to appoint the tellers for the 
electoral count of 1857.
  On February 2, 1857,\5\ the House received notice that the Senate had 
appointed three members of a joint committee to ascertain and report a 
mode of examining the votes for President and Vice-President of the 
United States, and of notifying the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Journal, pp. 263, 265; Globe, pp. 549, 550.
  \2\ The law now directs the order in which the officers and Members 
shall be seated. See section 1919 of this work.
  \3\ Globe, p. 549.
  \4\ Journal, p. 265. This joint committee evidently is the committee 
appointed to report a mode of counting. Both Messrs. Hunter and Jones 
were members of it, and probably the former reported not as teller but 
as member of the committee.
  \5\ Third session Thirty-fourth Congress, Journal, p. 338; Globe, p. 
538.
                                                            Sec. 1946
persons of their election. Thereupon it was ordered that the House 
agree to a committee of five, members to join the Senate committee.
  On February 4,\1\ the resolution \2\ was reported and adopted in the 
Senate, and on February 5 \3\ in the House. As soon as the resolution 
was agreed to, the Speaker was authorized, a motion being made and 
carried, to appoint the tellers on the part of the House.\4\
  On February 11 the House informed the Senate that it was ready to 
receive that body for the purpose of making the count, and soon the 
Senate appeared. The President pro tempore took his seat on the right 
of the Speaker, and the members of the Senate ``took seats provided for 
them in the area of the House.''
  The count proceeded, beginning with the State of Maine. When 
Wisconsin was reached the return showed that the electors of that State 
cast their votes on December 4 instead of the first Wednesday, which 
was the 3d, as prescribed by law.
  The return of Wisconsin having been presented, Mr. John Letcher, of 
Virginia, announced his desire to object to counting the vote of 
Wisconsin.
  The President pro tempore \5\ held that debate was not in order until 
the tellers had reported to the convention, and that it would not be in 
order at the present time to move that the vote of Wisconsin be 
rejected.
  The count being concluded, the tellers announced the state of the 
vote, counting the five votes of Wisconsin, which had no influence on 
the result.
  Thereupon Mr. Letcher asked if it would be in order to move to 
exclude the vote of Wisconsin; and Senator John J. Crittenden, of 
Kentucky, asked if Congress had no power to decide upon the validity or 
invalidity of a vote.
  The President pro tempore said:

  The Chair considers that, under the law and the concurrent order of 
the two Houses, nothing can be done here but to count the vote by 
tellers, and to declare the vote thus counted to the Senate and House 
of Representatives sitting in this Chamber. What further action may be 
taken, if any further action should be taken, will devolve upon the 
properly constituted authorities of the country--the Senate or House of 
Representatives, as the case may be. * * * In pursuance of the order of 
the two Houses, the Presiding Officer will now announce the vote which 
has been delivered to him by tellers.

  The President pro tempore then announced the state of the vote as 
reported by the tellers, and declared James Buchanan elected President, 
and John C. Breckinridge, Vice-President.
  Thereupon the point was raised by Mr. Humphrey Marshall, of Kentucky, 
a Representative, that the President pro tempore had announced and 
therefore counted the vote of Wisconsin.
  Mr. William Bigler, of Pennsylvania, teller on the part of the 
Senate, announced that he was instructed by the tellers to state to the 
President and the convention that they had not yet signed the 
certificate, and that they had determined to sign it only when it set 
forth all the facts. One of these facts was with reference to the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Globe, p. 568.
  \2\ This resolution is practically the same as that Weed to in 1861. 
See section 1947 of this volume.
  \3\ Journal, p. 364; Globe, p. 587.
  \4\ This is indicated by both Journal and Globe.
  \5\ James M. Mason, of Virginia, President pro tempore.
Sec. 1946
vote of Wisconsin, the vote of that State not having been cast on the 
day prescribed by law. The certificate which they would sign would set 
forth that fact.
  Protests against the action of the President pro tempore were made by 
Senators John J. Crittenden, of Kentucky, and Robert Toombs, of 
Georgia.
  Mr. James L. Orr, of South Carolina, moved that the vote of Wisconsin 
be rejected, and that the tellers be directed not to include it in 
their report.
  Senator Lewis Cass, of Michigan, made the point that no vote could be 
taken, since who should say whether they were to vote per capita or by 
States; as representatives of the people or of the States. If they 
could not vote they could not discuss. The only thing to do was for the 
two bodies to adjourn to their respective Chambers.
  The President pro tempore held:

  It is the opinion of the Presiding Officer that no vote can be taken 
as a joint vote by the two Houses thus assembled, and that no motion 
calling for a vote is in order.

  The President pro tempore was about to direct that the Senate return 
to its Chamber, and had so announced, when he reconsidered the order on 
representation that the tellers had not signed the certificate, and on 
protests by Senators Toombs, of Georgia, and Stephen A. Douglas, of 
Illinois, that the tellers must await the decision of the two Houses.
  An attempt was made to appeal from the decision of the Chair in 
excluding the motion of Mr. Orr, but the Chair declined to entertain 
any motion that would involve a vote of the two Houses.
  Senator Lyman Trumbull, of Illinois, submitted a motion that the 
Senate return to its own Chamber to consider the matter.
  The President pro tempore, disregarding a suggestion that he put 
himself at the head of the Senate and retire without vote, put the 
question and the Senate agreed to the motion.\1\
  Thereupon the Senate, preceded by its President and other officers, 
retired from the Hall of the House.
  The Senate having reached its Hall and come to order, Mr. Bigler, 
teller on the part of the Senate, proceeded to refer to the events in 
the joint convention \2\ and to present a written report signed by all 
the tellers and setting forth the state of the vote and the condition 
of the vote of Wisconsin. \3\
  The Senate debated the question two days \4\ beginning with a 
proposition that there be a conference of the two Houses through the 
joint committee which reported the resolution governing the count. Then 
Senator Crittenden proposed a concurrent resolution declaring the vote 
of Wisconsin null and void. Finally the resolution was laid on the 
table without division, and the Senate concurred with
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Globe, p. 654.
  \2\ Senator William M. Seward, of New York, protested against the use 
of the word ``convention'' as not found in the Constitution or any law. 
Globe, p. 644.
  \3\ It does not appear whether or not this is the report referred to 
in the proceedings of the joint convention. The present custom is for 
the tellers to sign the tabulated statement, but the report here given 
gives only the summaries. Globe, p. 644.
  \4\ Globe, pp. 644-650, 662-468.
                                                            Sec. 1947
the House in passing a resolution to constitute a committee to notify 
the President-elect and Vice-President-elect of their election.
  The House, after two days' debate \1\ and the presentation of various 
propositions, finally agreed to the resolution providing for a 
notification of the President-elect and Vice-President-elect of their 
election.
  1947. Proceedings at the electoral count of 1861.
  The House empowered the Speaker to appoint the tellers for the 
electoral count of 1861.
  On February 2, 1861,\2\ the House authorized the appointment of a 
committee of five Members to join a similar committee on the part of 
the Senate ``to ascertain and report a mode of examining the votes for 
President and Vice-President of the United States, and of notifying the 
persons chosen of their election.''
  On February 5 \3\ Mr. Lyman Trumbull, of Illinois, from the joint 
committee, reported in the Senate the following resolution, with the 
statement that it was the usual form adopted ``since the foundation of 
the Government:'' \4\

  Resolved, That the two Houses will assemble in the Chamber of the 
House of Representatives on Wednesday, the 13th day of February, 1861, 
at 12 o'clock, and the President of the Senate shall be the presiding 
officer; that one person be appointed a teller on the part of the 
Senate and two on the part of the House of Representatives to make a 
list of the votes as they shall be declared; that the result shall be 
delivered to the President of the Senate, who shall announce the state 
of the vote and the persons elected to the two Houses assembled as 
aforesaid, which shall be deemed a declaration of the persons elected 
President and Vice-President of the United States, and, together with a 
list of the votes, be entered on the Journals of the two Houses.

  On February 5, 1861,\5\ the resolution was agreed to by the House, 
and on motion made from the floor the Speaker was empowered to appoint 
the tellers.\6\
  The count took place under this resolution without unusual 
incident.\7\
  1948. Proceedings of the electoral count of 1865.
  At the electoral count of 1865 the Vice-President, in deference to a 
provision of law, withheld from the joint meeting the returns from the 
States of Louisiana and Tennessee.
  A motion was entertained in the joint meeting for the electoral count 
of 1865, but only for determination by the Houses separately.
  It was held during the electoral count of 1865 that an objection to 
the vote of a State must be raised at the time of the reading of the 
certificate.
  On February 6, 1865,\8\ the House and Senate were in joint convention 
for counting the electoral vote under the terms of the recently framed 
Joint Rule 22.\9\ The
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Journal, pp. 400-402, 405, 406; Globe, pp. 654-660, 672-675.
  \2\ Second session Thirty-sixth Congress, Journal, pp. 260, 261; 
Globe, p. 715.
  \3\ Globe, p. 740.
  \4\ In reality, this form of resolution dated from 1937, 1841 and 
1849. The resolution of 1845 differed in several respects. See section 
1943 of this work.
  \5\ Journal, pp. 273, 274; Globe, pp. 756, 757.
  \6\ The Journal does not record the motion that the Speaker be 
authorized to appoint. The Globe has it as made by Mr. Elihu B. 
Washburne, of Illinois.
  \7\ Journal, p. 310; Globe, p. 894.
  \8\ Second session Thirty-eighth Congress, Globe, pp. 668, 669.
  \9\ For terms of this joint rule see section 1951 (footnote) of this 
work. Electoral count of 1873.
Sec. 1949
Vice-President \1\ having concluded the opening and presentation of 
returns, announced in response to an inquiry by Senator Edgar Cowan, of 
Pennsylvania, that he had in his possession returns from the States of 
Louisiana and Tennessee, but in obedience to the law the Chair held it 
to be his duty not to submit them to the joint convention. This law\2\ 
was in the form of a joint resolution, and, while the official 
communication of the President's approval had not been received, the 
Chair had been apprised of the fact.
  Mr. George H. Yeaman, of Kentucky, moved that all the returns before 
the joint convention be opened and presented for its consideration.
  The Chair held that the motion was in order, being pertinent to the 
object for which the convention had assembled. It came within the 
latter clause of the joint resolution, which related to ``any other 
question pertinent to the object for which the two Houses are assembled 
may be submitted and determined in like manner.'' The Member would 
reduce his motion to writing, so that the precise question should be in 
possession of the Senate when it should retire for the determination of 
the question presented for the consideration of the convention. Each 
House must determine the question in its own Chamber.
  Mr. Nathan A. Farwell, of Maine, a Senator, raised the question of 
order that the question had already been decided by the two Houses of 
Congress in passing the joint resolution, which had been approved by 
the President.
  The Vice-President said:

  The fact of the approval of the President is within the knowledge of 
the Chair, and in consequence of that knowledge the Chair has seen fit 
to withhold the returns of the States in question. There has been no 
official promulgation of that approval of the President. Still, in the 
opinion of the Chair, if either branch of Congress shall be disposed to 
order the returns now upon the table to be read, it is within their 
power to do so. The reading of the returns would be one thing; then 
would arise another question, whether the vote in the return so read 
should be added to the count of the tellers. In the opinion of the 
Chair the motion of the Member from Kentucky is in order.

  Mr. Yeaman withdrew his motion.
  Mr. John V. L. Pruyn, of New York, proposed a motion that the tellers 
be instructed not to count the votes of the so called State of West 
Virginia.
  The Vice-President quoted the rule as follows:

  If upon the reading of any such certificate by the tellers, any 
question shall arise as to the counting of the votes therein certified, 
etc.,

  said:

  The question must be raised when the vote is announced. * * * The 
Member from New York should have made his motion, in order to come 
within the rule, at the time the tellers announced the vote of the 
State of West Virginia.

  1949. Proceedings of the electoral count of 1869.
  The President pro tempore held, during the electoral count of 1869, 
that under the terms of the then existing joint rule an objection to 
the counting of an electoral vote should be in writing and specific.
  During the electoral count of 1869 the President pro tempore used his 
discretion about entertaining points of order, but declined absolutely 
to entertain appeals.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Hannibal Hamlin, of Maine, Vice-President.
  \2\ 13 Stat. L., pp. 567, 568.
                                                            Sec. 1949
  During the electoral count of 1869 the President pro tempore declined 
to entertain a resolution offered by a Member of the House.
  During the electoral count of 1869 the President pro tempore ruled 
out of order a motion that the joint meeting adjourn, and after the 
announcement of the vote the Senate retired without motion.
  A provision providing for an alternative announcement of the 
electoral vote of Georgia caused much disagreement in the electoral 
count of 1869.
  On February 10, 1869,\1\ the House and Senate met in joint convention 
for counting the electoral vote under the terms of the joint rule of 
1865\2\ and a special rule adopted for this count.\3\ The count had 
proceeded as far as the State of Louisiana when Mr. James Mullins, of 
Tennessee, objected to counting the vote of that State.
  Mr. George W. Woodward, of Pennsylvania, a Representative, made the 
point of order that under the joint rule specific objection was 
required.
  The President pro tempore\4\ of the Senate, who was the presiding 
officer, ruled that the objection should be in writing and should 
assign a reason therefor, in order to conform to the terms of the joint 
rule.
  Mr. Charles A. Eldridge, of Wisconsin, a Representative, raised the 
question of order that the joint rule under which they were acting was 
in direct contravention of the terms of the Constitution.
  The Presiding Officer declined to entertain the point of order.
  The objection to the vote of Louisiana having been presented 
formally, the Senate retired. The two Houses having passed upon the 
objections the joint convention reassembled, and the Presiding Officer 
announced that the two Houses had acted concurrently and the vote of 
Louisiana would be counted.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Third session Fortieth Congress, Journal, pp. 314, 320; Globe, 
pp. 1056, 1062.
  \2\ For form of this joint rule see section 1951 (footnote) of this 
work.
  \3\ On February 8, 1869 (third session Fortieth Congress, Journal, 
pp. 303, 304; Globe, pp. 972, 976-978), the House and Senate agreed to 
the following concurrent resolution, based on the action taken in 1821, 
when there was doubt about the electoral vote of Missouri:
  ``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; 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 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 electoral 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: Were the votes presented as of the 
State of Georgia 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 President of the United States. And in the same manner for 
VicePresident.''
  \4\ Benjamin F. Wade, of Ohio, President pro tempore.
Sec. 1949
  The count then proceeded until the State of Georgia was reached. The 
certificates having been read, Mr. Benjamin F. Butler, of 
Massachusetts, a Representative, presented objections, in writing, to 
counting the vote of the State. These objections alleged that the vote 
was not cast on the day required by law, that the State had not been 
readmitted to representation, and that a fair election had not been 
held.
  Mr. George F. Edmunds, of Vermont, a Senator, raised the point of 
order that the objection was not in order, since by special rule for 
the occasion arrangement had been made for the vote of Georgia.
  The Presiding Officer said:

  The Chair is very much disposed to hold the Senate and House of 
Representatives to their own concurrent resolution. * * * The 
resolution of the two Houses declared that the vote of Georgia should 
be announced by the President pro tempore in a certain special way, and 
stated how that announcement should be made. The Chair is very much 
disposed to obey the directions of both branches of Congress in this 
matter.

  Mr. Butler proposed that this matter, being one of Constitutional 
law, should be considered, on appeal, to the House of Representatives.
  The Presiding Officer announced that the Senate would retire. The 
Senate having been called to order,\1\ there were presented 
propositions relating to the objections, one being that the vote should 
not be counted, another that it should be counted in accordance with 
the concurrent resolution of the 8th inst., etc. Finally, after 
discussion, the President pro tempore held that the Senate must proceed 
in accordance with the terms of the concurrent resolution. Thereupon 
Mr. George F. Edmunds, of Vermont, offered the following resolution, 
which was agreed to--yeas 37, nays 32.

  Resolved, That under the special order of the two Houses respecting 
the electoral vote from the State of Georgia the objections made to the 
counting of the vote of the electors for the State of Georgia are not 
in order.

  This resolution having been agreed to, the President pro tempore 
raised a question as to what announcement should be made to the joint 
convention, the two Houses not agreeing. Mr. Roscoe Conkling, of New 
York, having quoted these words of the Constitution--

  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--

raised a question as to how the Chair could make the conditional 
announcement required by the terms of the concurrent resolution.
  Thereupon Mr. Jacob M. Howard, of Michigan, offered this resolution:

  Resolved, That the electoral vote of Georgia ought not to be counted.

  A point of order was made that under the recent ruling of the 
President pro tempore the resolution was not in order.
  The President pro tempore held that the resolution was in order, it 
not being for the Chair to decide whether or not the proposition was in 
conflict with previous action. An appeal having been taken the decision 
of the Chair was sustained--yeas 28, nays 25.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Globe, pp. 1050-1055.
                                                            Sec. 1950
  The resolution offered by Mr. Howard was then rejected--yeas 25, nays 
34.
  In the House of Representatives\1\ the Speaker, after having 
announced and had read the objection, put the question: ``Shall the 
vote of Georgia be counted, notwithstanding the objection of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?''
  Mr. Charles A. Eldridge, of Wisconsin, raised the question of order 
that the Presiding Officer had ruled to hold the Joint Convention to 
the order made by concurrent action of the two Houses, and that the two 
bodies had separated on the point of order raised by the gentleman from 
Kentucky, Mr. Jones.
  The Speaker said:

  The Chair overrules the point of order. Questions in regard to the 
decision of the President of the convention of the two Houses must be 
submitted to that officer when occupying the chair in that capacity. 
The point upon which the two Houses separated was the objection of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts.

  Mr. John F. Farnsworth, of Illinois, made the point of order that the 
joint [concurrent] resolution of the two Houses was of higher authority 
and a later rule than the one ordering that question to be put.
  The Speaker said:

  The Chair overrules the point of order on the ground that the 
concurrent resolution devolves no duty on the Speaker of the House at 
all. It devolves a duty on the President of the Senate in presiding 
over the joint meeting of the two Houses. * * * It devolves no duty on 
the Speaker or upon the House of Representatives in its capacity as the 
House.

  Mr. Michael C. Kerr, of Indiana, as a parliamentary inquiry, asked if 
the propositions submitted by the gentleman from Massachusetts as his 
objection were capable of division and separate votes.
  The Speaker held that they were not.
  The question being then taken, it was voted, yeas 41, nays 150, that 
the vote of Georgia should not be counted.
  1950. Proceedings of the electoral count of 1869, continued.
  The two Houses having separated for action on an objection during the 
electoral count of 1869, the House announced to the Senate, by message, 
its decision.
  Disorder arising in the joint meeting during the electoral count of 
1869, the Speaker called Members of the House to order and directed the 
Sergeant-at-Arms to assist.
  Mr. Speaker Colfax presided with the President pro tempore at the 
electoral count of 1869, although he was ascertained by that count to 
be the Vice-President-elect.
  Mr. Speaker Colfax left the chair to participate in debate on a 
question arising out of the electoral count of 1869.
  A proposition in the Senate to censure a Member of the House for 
conduct in the joint meeting to count the electoral vote.
  The Speaker announced that a message would be sent to the Senate 
informing that body of the action of the House.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Journal, p. 315; Globe, pp. 1058, 1059.
Sec. 1950
  When the joint convention reassembled\1\ the President pro tempore, 
having resumed the chair, said:

  The objections of the gentleman from Massachusetts are overruled by 
the Senate, and the result of the vote will be stated as it would stand 
were the vote of the State of Georgia counted, and as it would stand if 
the vote of that State were not counted, under the concurrent 
resolution of the two Houses.

  Mr. Benjamin F. Butler, of Massachusetts, proposed to submit a 
resolution.
  The President pro tempore said:

  The Chair declines to receive the resolution. The tellers will make 
out the statement of the vote as directed.

  Mr. Butler appealed and the Chair declined to entertain the appeal. 
Mr. Butler, having, amid much confusion, insisted on his appeal, the 
Chair said:

  The Chair his decided that an appeal can not be entertained in the 
joint convention.

  Being questioned as to his authority for declining to entertain an 
appeal, the Chair said:

  We are proceeding under a concurrent resolution of both bodies which 
has declared how the counting and announcement of the votes shall be 
proceeded with.

  The President pro tempore proceeded to direct the tellers to report, 
after having ruled out of order a motion to adjourn, and having ignored 
a motion that the convention be dissolved. The confusion became so 
great that the Speaker of the House, from his place beside the 
President pro tempore, said:

  The Speaker of the House appeals to Members of the House to preserve 
order. The Sergeant-at-Arms of the House will arrest any Member 
refusing to obey the order of the President of this convention.\2\

  The state of the vote was then announced as provided by the terms of 
the concurrent resolution.\3\
  The President pro tempore then announced that the Senate would 
retire.
  As soon as the Senate had retired, Mr. Benjamin F. Butler, of 
Massachusetts, rising to a question of privilege, offered a resolution 
which he subsequently modified to read as follows:

  Resolved, That the House protests against the manner of procedure and 
the order of the President of the Senate pro tempore, in presence of 
the two Houses, in counting the vote of Georgia in obedience to the 
order of the Senate only, and against his acts dissolving the 
convention and the two Houses at his own will as an invasion of the 
rights and privileges of this House.
  Resolved, That the above resolution be, and hereby is, referred to a 
select committee of five, with leave to report at any time, and report 
by bill or otherwise.

  A long debate \4\ arose, in the course of which the Speaker, who left 
the chair to participate, said: \5\

  It is impossible in a joint convention that there should be an appeal 
from the ruling of the Chair, because it could not be entertained by 
the presiding officer. There never has been an appeal in any joint 
convention of Congress. It might have been provided for in the rules, 
but has been omitted.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Globe, pp. 1062, 1063.
  \2\ The Speaker was Mr. Colfax, who was also the Vice-President 
declared elected by this count.
  \3\ Journal, p. 320; Globe, p. 1063.
  \4\ Globe, pp. 1064-1067, 1094-1107, 1144-1148.
  \5\ Globe, p. 1067.
                                                            Sec. 1951
* * * There can be no appeal on a point of order in a joint convention 
of the two Houses for the reason that the Senate, representing the 
States, and the House of Representatives representing the people of the 
United States, the convention is made up of different persons, each 
body representing the same number of people, but by different numbers 
and in different ways.

  Finally, on February 12,\1\ the subject was laid on the table, yeas 
130, nays 55. In the Senate, on February 11,\2\ Mr. Garrett Davis, of 
Kentucky, proposed in the Senate a concurrent resolution censuring Mr. 
Butler, but it does not seem to have been acted on.
  1951. Proceedings of the electoral count of 1873.
  When an objection is raised to the counting of the electoral vote of 
a State in the joint meeting, two copies are made of the objection, one 
for use of the House and the other for the Senate.
  During the electoral count of 1873 the joint meeting made, by 
unanimous consent, orders relating to the reading of the certificates 
and the consideration of objections.
  During the electoral count of 1873 the objection to the vote of 
Georgia was, by unanimous consent, reserved until objection was made to 
the vote of Mississippi, when the Houses separated and considered the 
two.
  When, during the electoral count of 1873, the two Houses separated to 
consider objections, the Vice-President, who had custody of the 
documents, left with the House duplicates of the electoral 
certificates.
  The former joint rule providing for the electoral count. (Footnote.)
  In a message in 1865 the President of the United States disclaimed 
all right of interfering with the canvassing or counting of the 
electoral votes. (Footnote.)
  On February 12, 1873,\3\ the House directed its Clerk to inform the 
Senate that it was ready to receive that body for the purpose of 
proceeding to open and count the electoral votes. This was the last 
count to take place under the twenty-second joint rule.\4\ The 
formalities of assembling being over, by unanimous consent of
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Journal, p. 335; Globe, p. 1148.
  \2\ Globe, p. 1069.
  \3\ Third session Forty-second Congress, Journal, p. 374; Globe, p. 
1294.
  \4\ The twenty-second joint rule provided: ``The two Houses shall 
assemble in the Hall of the House of Representatives at the hour of 1 
o'clock p. m. , on the second Wednesday in February next succeeding the 
meeting of the electors of President and Vice-President of the United 
States, and the President of the Senate shall be the presiding officer; 
one teller shall be appointed on the part of the Senate and two on the 
part of the House of Representatives, to whom shall be handed, as they 
are opened by the President of the Senate, the certificates of the 
electoral votes; and said tellers, having read the same in the presence 
and hearing of the two Houses thus assembled, shall make a list of the 
votes as they shall appear from the said certificates; and the votes 
having been counted the result of the same shall be delivered to the 
President of the Senate, who shall thereupon announce the state of the 
vote and the names of the persons, if any, elected, which announcement 
shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons elected 
President and Vice-President of the United States, and, together with a 
list of the votes, be entered on the Journals of the two Houses.
  ``If, upon the reading of any such certificate by the tellers, 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 such question to the House of
Sec. 1951
the joint convention, it was ordered that the reading, of the 
certificates at length should be dispensed with, and that the tellers 
should make examination and announce whether or not in each case the 
certificate of the governor of the state accompanied the return.\1\
  The count proceeded \2\ until the State of Georgia was reached, when 
an objection was made by Mr. George F. Hoar, of Massachusetts, a 
Representative. By unanimous consent this objection was reserved and 
the count proceeded, until an objection was filed to the vote of the 
State of Mississippi.
  The Vice-President \3\ then announced that two copies would be made 
of the objections, one for the House and one for the Senate. The Vice-
President also stated that a doubt had been suggested as to the 
authority of the President of the Senate to leave in the possession of 
the House any official document in his possession pertaining to the 
electoral vote. But as the tellers had reported, besides the documents 
delivered to the Vice-President by messenger, duplicates received by 
mail, he would, by unanimous consent, leave the duplicates in 
possession of the House. There being no objection this was done.
  The objections having been formally presented, the Vice-President 
announced that the Senate would withdraw to their Chamber. The Senate 
accordingly withdrew.
Representatives for its decision. And no question shall be decided 
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, and upon any such 
question there shall be no debate in either House. And any other 
question pertinent to the object for which the two Houses are assembled 
may be submitted and determined in like manner.''
  The next paragraph provides for the seating of the officers and 
members of the joint convention. The present law embodies this 
paragraph. (See section 1919 of this work.) The joint rule then 
continues:
  ``Such joint meeting shall not be dissolved until the electoral votes 
are all counted and the result declared; and no recess shall be taken 
unless a question shall have arisen in regard to counting any of such 
votes, in which case it shall be competent for either House, acting 
separately in the manner herein before provided, to direct a recess not 
beyond the next day at the hour of 1 o'clock p.m.''
  This joint rule dates from February 6, 1865, when, in the Senate, Mr. 
Lyman Trumbull, of Illinois, presented it as the report of a joint 
committee to whom was referred the subject. The first paragraph was 
similar to the resolution adopted in 1861, but in certain respects 
differed materially. (See Journal of February 5, 1861, second session 
Thirty-sixth Congress, p. 273.) The other paragraphs appear to be new. 
The debate indicates that the new joint rule was proposed to obviate 
difficulties occasioned by the status of some of the States recently in 
secession. (Second session Thirty-eighth Congress, Journal, p. 200; 
Globe, pp. 608, 628.) At this time also the House and Senate passed a 
joint resolution ``declaring certain States not entitled to 
representation in the electoral college.'' The President signed this 
joint resolution, but in a message disclaimed all right of the 
Executive to interfere in the canvassing or counting of the electoral 
vote. (Journal, p. 213; Globe, p. 711.)
  On February 10, 1869, Mr. Speaker Colfax, speaking of Joint Rule 22, 
said it was adopted in 1865 because it was feared that in the troublous 
condition of the country there might be a disastrous repetition of the 
scenes of confusion witnessed during the electoral count of 1857. 
(Globe, third session Fortieth Congress, pp. 1066, 1067.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Globe, p. 1296.
  \2\ Globe, pp. 1296, 1297.
  \3\ Schuyler Colfax, of Indiana, Vice-President.
                                                            Sec. 1952
  1952. Proceedings of the electoral count of 1873, continued.
  Under the former joint rule for counting the electoral vote the Vice-
President held that objection to the vote of a State, even for a 
Constitutional reason, should be made at the time the vote was opened 
and counted.
  After the two Houses had separately considered objections raised 
during the electoral count of 1873, they informed one another of their 
conclusions by message, and the House by message informed the Senate of 
its readiness to receive them in order to proceed with the count.
  At the electoral count of 1873 the Vice-President, in accordance with 
the previous practice, not only announced the state of the vote, but 
declared those elected.
  The Vice-President held, in 1873, that an appeal might not be taken 
in the joint meeting for counting the electoral vote.
  Later, after the two Houses had acted individually on the objections, 
after they had transmitted to one another by message copies of the 
resolutions embodying their respective conclusions,\1\ and after the 
House had further informed the Senate by message that it was ready to 
receive them ``to proceed again with the counting of the electoral 
votes,'' the Senate appeared in the Hall of the House and the Vice-
President resumed the chair, and after the actions of the two Houses 
had been reported, said:

  Therefore, by the twenty-second joint rule, there being a 
nonconcurrence between the two Houses upon the three votes cast in the 
State of Georgia for Horace Greeley for President of the United States, 
they can not be counted; and in accordance with the same joint rule the 
vote of Mississippi will be counted.

  The tellers having resumed the counting and having reached the State 
of Missouri, Mr. Oliver P. Morton, of Indiana, a Senator, called 
attention to the fact that the certificates of the State of Georgia 
showed that votes had been cast for citizens of that State for both 
President and Vice-President, in violation of the Constitution, and 
made the point that an objection on this account, although not made 
when the returns from Georgia were opened, was in order if made before 
the final announcement of the counting of all the votes.
  The Vice-President held that the objection came too late,\2\ under 
the terms of the joint rule which provided for the settlement of 
questions arising over the vote of any State.
  Mr. Matthew H. Carpenter, of Wisconsin, a Senator, as a parliamentary 
inquiry, asked if it would be in order to take an appeal from the 
decision of the Chair.
  The Vice-President said:

  The Senator himself will see that there could not be an appeal taken 
in a joint meeting of the two Houses; but if any point can be made on 
which the two Houses can be required to divide, the Chair will 
entertain it. The language of the joint rule is so emphatic that the 
Senator from Wisconsin will see that when a thing is directed to be 
done at a particular time, it must be done at that time.\3\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Globe, p. 1299.
  \2\ Globe, p. 1300.
  \3\ The present law (24 Stat. L., p. 374; also section 1766 of this 
work) provides: ``The President of the Senate shall have power to 
preserve order; and no debate shall be allowed and no question shall be 
put by the presiding officer except to either House on a motion to 
withdraw.''
Sec. 1952
  The count having proceeded, and objections having been made to the 
counting of the vote of Texas, the Senate withdrew; and, the two Houses 
having separately passed upon the objections, the joint convention 
reassembled. The conclusions of the two Houses having been announced, 
the Vice-President announced that under the rule, the two Houses 
concurring, the vote of Texas could be counted.
  In a similar manner objections to the votes of the States of Arkansas 
and Louisiana were considered, and the votes of these States were 
excluded.
  The Vice-President, at the conclusion of the count and after he had 
announced the result, said:

  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, * * *.\1\

  A similar declaration was then made as to the Vice-President.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Journal, p. 384; Globe, p. 1306.