Senate, had virtually determined to get round that question to-day, and to put an end to any controversy which might arise in respect to it, in the manner contemplated by the second resolution passed this morning. Mr. C. therefore moved that the subject now under consideration be laid on the table, in order to resume the business which had been interrupted by the retirement of the Senate."

Mr. BOYCE. The question was then taken on Mr. Clay's motion to lay the resolution on the table, and it was decided in the affirmative; and then, on motion of Mr. Clay, it was ordered that a message be sent to the Senate to inform that body that the House was ready to receive the Senate in the chamber of the House of Representatives, for the purpose of continuing the enumeration of the votes. I move, then, Mr. Speaker, first, that we adopt a resolution that the vote of Wisconsin be counted hypothetically; and, secondly, that a message be sent to the Senate inviting that body to come in and continue in convention until the announcement is made.

The SPEAKER. There is an appeal from the decision of the Chair pending, and the motion cannot now be received.

Mr. SHERMAN. I move to lay the resolution on the table.

Mr. FLORENCE. I submit a question of privilege.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Pennsylvania rises to a question of privilege. Mr. FLORENCE. Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege is this: That in compliance with the requirements of the Constitution and the act of Congress in relation to the subject, the Senate and House of Representatives having assembled in joint convention, and having counted the votes, and the result having been duly pronounced and declared, there is nothing left but to adopt the resolution I submit, providing that a committee be appointed to inform James Buchanan, of Pennsylvania, that he has been elected President of the United States for the constitutional term, beginning on the 4th day of March proximo; and also to inform John C. Breckinridge, of Kentucky, that he has been elected Vice-President of the United States for the same period. The following is the resolution:

"The Senate and House of Representatives having, in obedience to the requirements of the Constitution, assembled in the House of Representatives to count the votes cast for President and Vice-President of the United States, and it appearing that James Buchanan, of Pennsylvania, having received a majority of the votes cast for President of the United States, which said result having been pronounced and declared; and it also appearing that John C. Breckinridge, of Kentucky, having received a majority of the votes cast for Vice-President of the United States, which said result having been pronounced and declared; and it appearing that James Buchanan and John C. Breckinridge having received more than the constitutional number of the votes cast, without any question or contest, objection or doubt:

"Resolved, That the Speaker of the House be requested to appoint a committee, to act in conjunction with a similar committee of the Senate, to wait upon James Buchanan, of Pennsylvania, and inform him he has been elected to be President of the United States, for the constitutional term of four years, commencing on the 4th day of March, 1857; and also to wait upon John C. Breckinridge, of Kentucky, and to inform him that he has been elected Vice-President of the United States, for the constitutional term of four years, commencing on the 4th day of March, 1857."

The SPEAKER. The resolution, in the opinion of the Chair, is not a question of privilege, and is not in order at this time.

Mr. FLORENCE. Very well, sir. it, however, occurred to my mind we had nothing else to do upon the subject but to pursue the course I have indicated.

Mr. CAMPBELL, of Ohio. I ask my colleague to withdraw the motion until Ifean have read for information a resolution which I propose to offer as a substitute.

Mr. SEWARD. I object.

The SPEAKER. The motion to lay upon the table is not received pending the question of order as to whether the resolution itself can be received.

Mr. SHERMAN. I move to lay the appeal from the decision of the Chair upon the table.

Mr. FLAGLER, (at twenty-five minutes to 4 o'clock p. m.) I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was not agreed to.

Mr. AKERS. I move that the House take a recess until 7 o'clock.

The SPEAKER. The motion is not in order.

Mr. CAMPBELL, of Ohio. I ask to have my proposition read.

Mr. SEWARD. I object.

Mr. DAVIS, of Maryland. I withdraw the appeal from the decision of the Chair. Mr. CAMPBELL, of Ohio. I now propose as a substitute for the resolution of the gentleman from South Carolina the resolution which I send to the Chair.

Mr. SEWARD. I rise to a question of order. The resolution of the gentleman from South Carolina was offered as an original proposition. A substitute was proposed for that by the gentleman from Wisconsin. My point of order is that no other substitute

can be in order.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Wisconsin moved to amend the original resolution: and the gentleman from Ohio moves an amendment to the amendment, which is in order.

The substitute offered by Mr. Campbell was then read, as follows:

"Whereas the members of this House are satisfied that, in pursuance of the Constitution and laws of the United States, James Buchanan, of Pennsylvania, has been elected President, and that John C. Breckinridge, of Kentucky, has been elected VicePresident, for the constitutional term of four years from the 4th of March, 1857; and whereas they are further satisfied that a majority of the people of Wisconsin cast their votes for John C. Frémont as President, and William L. Dayton for Vice-President, and that the electors, by act of Providence, failed to cast their votes upon the day fixed by law; and whereas the vote of the said State of Wisconsin cannot affect the result of the election: Therefore,

"Resolved, That when the Senate again return to the hall of the House of Representatives, under the provisions of the joint resolution, it is the opinion of this House that the vote of said State of Wisconsin ought to be counted."

Mr. LETCHER. I would suggest to the gentleman from Ohio that he add to his resolution, that a committee be appointed to notify the Senate.

Mr. CAMPBELL, of Ohio. The Senate left this hall of their own accord, and when they see fit to return, this resolution, if passed, carries with it the expression of the sense of this House. I am not in favor of sending any committee after that body. They left us, a co-ordinate and co-equal branch of the national legislature, of their own will, abruptly; and when they return here, I trust we will receive them and treat them with becoming courtesy.

No difficulty can grow out of the adoption of this resolution in future. It simply puts the facts of the case on record, and establishes no dangerous precedent.

Mr. GARNETT. I desire to know of the gentleman from Ohio, whether a single human being in the State of Wisconsin voted for John C. Frémont for President, or for William L. Dayton for Vice-President; and I wish to know, further, whether in the purview of the Constitution, and according to the facts, the people of that State did not cast their votes for electors of President, and not for President directly; and whether he means to have this House stultify itself by declaring, by this resolution, that to be a fact which is not a fact?

Mr. CAMPBELL, of Ohio. I will modify my resolution so as to meet the gentleman's peculiar views or abstractions. I will insert before" John C. Frémont" the words "electors favorable to the election of." And now, Mr. Speaker, having accepted the suggestion of the gentleman, and having modified my amendment, without going into any elaborate argument upon the abstruse principles of the law bearing upon this case, I will content myself by bringing the House, if I can, to a vote upon the proposition. I therefore move the previous question.

Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. I wish to appeal to the gentleman from Ohio to withdraw the call for the previous question, that I may make a few remarks, as I was one of the tellers on the part of the House, and have not had an opportunity to say a word upon this question.

Mr. CAMPBELL, of Ohio. The position of the gentleman from Tennessee is somewhat peculiar, he having been one of the tellers on the part of the House; and with the understanding that he will renew the call for the previous question, I will withdraw it for his benefit.

Mr. BOYCE. What has become of the resolution I sent to the Clerk's desk?

The SPEAKER. It was not received.

Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I think there is no necessity for any of this. excitement or feeling on the present occasion.

Mr. DUNN. I ask my friend from Tennessee to permit a resolution I have prepared, and which, when in order, I will submit to be read for information.

Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. No further amendment is now in order.

Mr. SEWARD. And I object to the reading of the resolution.

Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. I have a very few remarks to make. I would say that I have no feeling on this occasion; nor, Mr. Speaker, do I see the reason for any feeling or excitement on the part of this House. The Senate and House of Representatives met here this morning, in pursuance of the Constitution and the law of the country, to open and count the votes cast for President and Vice-President of the United States. The President of the Senate, to whom the reports of the votes of the electoral colleges were made, opened them and handed them to the tellers appointed by the two houses. The tellers reported these votes to the two houses. When the vote of Wisconsin was handed to the tellers, I read it to the two houses. I read every word of the certificates attached to the vote of that State. It was dated December 4, 1856, the day after the day prescribed by law for the casting of that vote. The other certificates seemed to be in regular form.

When I made the report from the tellers to the two houses, I stated that of all the votes cast, James Buchanan, of Pennsylvania, had received for President of the United

States 174 votes; John C. Frémont, of California, including the vote of Wisconsin, 114 votes; and Millard Fillmore, 8 votes; and that John C. Breckinridge had received for Vice-President of the United States 174 votes; William L. Dayton, including the vote fo Wisconsin, 114 votes; and Andrew J. Donelson, 8 votes.

Now, what is the plain provision of the Constitution? After directing that the returns of the electors shall be sealed, and sent to the President of the Senate, it then provides that the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and the House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the vote shall then be counted. Was not that done; and was not the Constitution complied with? It goes on then to say that the person having the greatest number of votes for President shall be President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed. Is there a gentleman on this floor, or who was in the joint meeting of the two houses, who doubts or questions the fact that Mr. Buchanan has received a majority of all the electoral votes, and is, therefore, elected President of the United States for the next four years? Here is the law of 1792, which provides:

"That Congress shall be in session on the second Wednesday in February, 1793, and on the second Wednesday in February succeeding every meeting of the electors; and the said certificates, or so many of them as shall have been received, shall then be opened, the votes counted, and the persons who shall fill the offices of President and Vice-President of the United States ascertained and declared, agreeably to the Constitution."

All this has been complied with; the certificates were opened, the votes counted, and the tellers made their report. The Presiding Officer of the two houses reported the result, and declared that James Buchanan, of Pennsylvania, was duly elected President of the United States for the constitutional term of four years from the 4th of March next, and that John C. Breckinridge was duly elected Vice-President of the United States for the same period.

Mr. WELLS. I ask whether the gentleman from Tennessee knows why the electors of Wisconsin did not cast their votes on the proper day?

Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. That was stated in a certificate on the other side of the paper which contained a statement of the votes.

Mr. WELLS. I ask the gentleman whether the tellers read that to the convention? Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. We did not read it to the convention.

Mr. WELLS. I call for the reading of that certificate.

Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. That certificate is, I presume, in the hands of the Senate, as all the certificates of votes were taken by that body. It is known (and I suppose there is no controversy about that) that the reason why they did not assemble on the prescribed day was in consequence of the terrific storm by which their progress was impeded, and which prevented them from reaching the seat of government in time to cast their votes on the day prescribed by law. That is the reason. It makes no sort

of difference, it seems to me, whether or not we put down the votes of Wisconsin, and say they shall be counted. If they had cast their vote on the proper day, Mr. Frémont would have received it. It makes no sort of difference now whether any one of the votes cast for Mr. Frémont was legal or not, or whether they were all illegal. It does not change the result. Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Breckinridge received one hundred and seventy-four electoral votes. It is conceded by all that they were legal and constitutional; that they were cast on the day prescribed by law. Therefore, no exception ean be taken to them.

Now, it is argued here that it is all-important to settle this question, for fear of the tremendous precedent we are about to set. Why, sir, is there a gentleman who believes (let us say what we will on this question) that at some future election a case can arise where (when the electors do not meet for one, two, three, or four days after the day prescribed by law, and when the votes of those States would affect or change the result) this would be held to be a precedent-a controlling and influencing precedent, to be interpreted in favor of the election of the gentleman who would have succeeded to the Presidency if the votes of the electors had been cast on the proper day? I presume not. I have nothing more to say on the subject; and, as I received the floor from the gentleman from Ohio on condition that I should renew the previous question, I do so.

Mr. SMITH, of Tennessee. I move to lay the whole subject on the table.

Mr. H. MARSHALL. On that motion I call for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KUNKEL (at 4 o'clock p. m.) moved that the House adjourn.

Mr. COBB, of Georgia, called for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was taken; and it was decided in the negative-yeas 80, nays 94, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Akers, Albright, Allison, Ball, Barbour, Billinghurst, Bingham, Bishop, Bliss, Branch, Brenton, Broom, Buffinton, Burlingame, Clawson, Clingman, Colfax, Comins, Cox, Cumback, Henry Winter Davis, Timothy Davis, Dick, Dickson, Dodd, Durfee, Etheridge, Flagler, Henry M. Fuller, Galloway, Robert B. Hall, Harlan, Harri

son, Herbert, Holloway, Thomas R. Horton, Valentine B. Horton, Howard, George W. Jones, King, Knapp, Knox, Kunkel, Leiter, McCarty, Morgan, Morrill, Murray, Norton, Andrew Oliver, Parker, Pelton, Perry, Pettit, Powell, Pringle, Purviance, Ready, Ricaud, Sabin, Sage, Sapp, Savage, Sherman, Samuel A. Smith, Spinner, Tappan, Todd, Tyson, Wade, Wakeman, Waldron, Cadwalader C. Washburne, Elihu B. Washburne, Watkins, Watson, Wood, Woodworth, and Daniel B. Wright—80.

NAYS-Messrs. Aiken, Allen, Barksdale, Hendley S. Bennett, Benson, Bocock, Boyce, Burnett, John P. Campbell, Lewis D. Campbell, Caruthers, Chaffee, Ezra Clark, Howell Cobb, Williamson R. W. Cobb, Cragin, Craige, Crawford, Damrell, Davidson, Day, Dean, Dowdell, Dunn, Emrie, Eustis, Faulkner, Florence, Foster, Thomas J. D. Fuller, Garnett, Goode, Greenwood, Augustus Hall, J. Morrison Harris, Haven, Hickman, Hodges, Hoffman, Houston, Jewett, J. Glancy Jones, Kelly, Kidwell, Knight, Knowlton, Lake, Letcher Lumpkin, Humphrey Marshall, Samuel S. Marshall, Maxwell, McMullen, McQueen, Smith Miller, Millson, Millward, Moore, Mott, Nichols, Mordecai Oliver, Orr, Packer, Paine, Peck, Pike, Puryear, Quitman, Reade, Roberts, Ruffin, Scott, Seward, Shorter, William Smith, Sneed, Stanton, Stewart, Stranahan, Talbott, Taylor, Thorington, Trafton, Trippe, Valk, Walker, Warner, Israel Washburn, Wells, Wheeler, Williams, Winslow, Woodruff, and John V. Wright-94.

So the House refused to adjourn.

Pending the call,

Mr. CAMPBELL, of Kentucky, stated that his colleague, Mr. Underwood, was detained from the House by indisposition.

Mr. COLFAX moved a call of the House.

Mr. WRIGHT, of Mississippi, called for the yeas and nays.

And then, on motion of Mr. Washburne, of Illinois, (at four o'clock and twenty minutes,) the House adjourned.

IN SENATE, February 11, 1857.

At ten minutes past 2 o'clock the Senate returned to their chamber, and the President pro tempore resumed the chair, and called the Senate to order.

Mr. BIGLER. Mr. President, the tellers on the part of the Senate and House of Representatives to count the presidential votes have instructed me to make a report. Before delivering the report to the Secretary to be read, I wish to allude to the difficulty which occurred in convention in reference to the vote of the State of Wisconsin. Mr. SEWARD. Will the honorable Senator allow me to interrupt him? I think he used the word "convention." I think it is not found in the Constitution or any law of the United States, and as this is an important proceeding, I should like to guard against any misapprehension by way of precedent.

Mr. BIGLER. Then I will say that the two houses assembled in the hall of the House of Representatives, which is the form prescribed. I was about remarking, Mr. President, that this difficulty is not entirely new. There have been similar cases; but they seem to have been anticipated and provided for in advance.

Mr. STUART. I wish to make a suggestion to the Senator, of which I think he will see the propriety. It is that he make such report as he intends to make first, and then make any explanation afterward.

Mr. BIGLER. I was about making an explanation of the peculiar character of the report.

Several SENATORS. Let us hear the report.

The Secretary read it, as follows:

"The tellers on the part of the two houses report that they have counted the votes of all the States cast for President and Vice-President of the United States of America for the constitutional term of four years from the 4th day of March, 1857, and find that on the first Wednesday in December, 1856, the electors of all the States assembled in their respective States, being the day prescribed by law for the assembling of the electors, except the electors for the State of Wisconsin; that of those who assembled and cast their votes on the said first Wednesday of December, 1856, James Buchanan, of the State of Pennsylvania, received 174 votes for President of the United States; John C. Frémont, of California, received 109 votes; and Millard Fillmore received 8 votes for the same office: that for Vice-President of the United States, John C. Breckinridge, of Kentucky, received 174 votes; William L. Dayton, of New Jersey, received 109 votes; and Andrew J. Donelson, of Tennessee, received 8 votes: that from the report of the electors of the State of Wisconsin, it appears that the electors for that State assembled in Madison, the capital of that State, on the 4th of December, 1856, the day after the day prescribed for the meeting of the electors for President and VicePresident of the United States, and so assembled on that day did cast the electoral votes of that State, five for John C. Fremont, of California, for President, and five for William L. Dayton, of New Jersey, for Vice-President of the United States.

"WILLIAM BIGLER,

"Teller on the part of the Senate. "GEORGE W. JONES, of Tennessee, "WILLIAM A. HOWARD, of Michigan,

"Tellers on the part of the House of Representatives."

Mr. HUNTER. The Senator from Pennsylvania will allow me to make a suggestion: This whole matter is new; no difficulty of this sort ever occurred before when the two houses were sitting together. Heretofore similar difficulties have been provided for, and provided for by the committee proposing a resolution simply declaring that, no matter how the vote of the disputed State was counted, it should not affect the general result. It seems to me, and I suggest it for the consideration of the teller in regard to the action which he may propose, that the best way would be for the Senate to propose to the House of Representatives that the committee which has been appointed on this subject should confer in regard to the report they have made. I have no doubt they will agree to make some such report as was made in the case of Michigan and Missouri; and when the two committees have agreed that that shall be made, let us go back in joint convention, and settle it as it was settled in the case of Michigan and Missouri. I move, then, that the committee which has been heretofore appointed by the Chair on this subject-I forget its title-be instructed to confer with the same committee on the part of the House of Representatives in regard to the report they shall make.

Mr. SEWARD. And report to the Senate?

Mr. HUNTER. Yes, sir.

Mr. SEWARD. I second that motion.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair will state that, four years ago, upon a like occasion, it appears, from the Journal of the Senate, that the chairman of the committee appointed jointly with that of the House of Representatives to prescribe the mode of counting the votes, &c., made a report to the Senate after the votes had been counted, so that the functions of the committee are presumed to be still continued.

The Chair will further state to the Senate, as the result of the action in the hall of the House of Representatives in counting the votes, that the duty was devolved upon the Presiding Officer there, by the concurrent order of the two houses, to declare the result of the vote as delivered to him by the tellers. That declaration did not involve, in the opinion of the Chair, the validity or the invalidity of the vote of the State of Wisconsin. The declaration made by the Chair in the presence of the two houses as to the gentleman who had been elected President was written down, and is in these words: "That James Buchanan, of the State of Pennsylvania, having the greatest number of votes for President, and that number being a majority of the whole number of electors, has been duly elected." Whether the vote of the State of Wisconsin be included or not, the declaration made by the Presiding Officer that Mr. Buchanan had a majority of the votes, and that that majority was a majority of the whole number of the electoral votes, was strictly conformable to the fact.

Mr. NOURSE. I wish to suggest to the gentleman from Virginia a difficulty in my mind, to see if he can obviate it. This is a point which becomes important when the vote in question is going to decide the result, but until that occasion comes it is unimportant. It is important now as a precedent, because such a case as that may occur, and then it would be vastly important. Now, if the convention, so to call it, of the two houses is not to decide whether the vote of a certain State is to be counted or not, who is to decide it? It must be decided by some body; and if the two houses separate and do not agree, what is to be the result, and what is to come of it? If the convention assembled have a right to settle the question they can settle it undoubtedly; but if it depends on the concurrent action of the two houses, why may not a result be defeated altogether?

Mr. BUTLER. I feel a little concerned about this question, I confess, as one of those who think the States ought to maintain their relative influence under the Constitution as States, and the representatives as representatives. Now, sir, I dispute the right, out and out, of ascertaining who is elected President, and who is not elected President, except by the rule of addition. Whether the return from Wisconsin forms a part of the vote or not, I want to know; because if this circumstance had happened to fall on New York or Pennsylvania, there might have been a different result. Mind-I wish to be as emphatic as I can on this subject-if this convention, as it is called, in which the Senate is a part only, can assume the jurisdiction of saying how votes shall be counted, (and that is what they have assumed to do in some measure,) I presume they can make a President of the United States without an election, by simply saying what votes shall be counted and what not counted; and the Presidency of the United States would be virtually committed to the numerical strength of the House of Representatives, without what I consider the controlling power of the representatives of the States. That is my opinion. I do not say it in any other spirit than an abstract one. I have no feeling on this subject, for it makes no difference in the result, and it is fortunate that it is so. But I shall insist upon it, in adding up the votes, that you shall say-and I differ from the Chair in that respect-that Mr. Frémont received such a number and no more, and you shall say that Mr. Buchanan received such a number and no more and no less. That is the mode of ascertaining who has the greatest number, and what are the relative numbers of the two. I never will consent, Mr. President, that this Wisconsin vote shall be counted.