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 twe 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, together with the list of the votes, shall be entered on the journals of the two houses. Mr. Tazewell went, at some length, into an explanation and justification of the course adopted by the committee. In some points, in which the committee on the part of the Senate would have preferred a different arrangement, they were overruled by the committee on the part of the House, which had its rights as well as the Senate. The mode reported by the committee was precisely, however, the same as that adopted by the Senate and agreed on by the two houses on similar occasions from the year. 1805 to 1817, inclusive. Mr. EATON then moved to add the following: "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 niade 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." This amendment was opposed by Mr. Hayne and Mr. Van Buren, on the ground that it was now too late to attempt to provide in anticipation for such an occurrence; that the Senate had at the last session passed a bill providing for every possible contingency for which the Constitution prescribed no rule, which bill the House of Representatives had not acted on; that, therefore, if any difficulty should arise on the present occasion, the Senate could not be reproached for it; that, as it was now too late to expect the two houses to concur in any regulations of the kind in time for the government of the proceedings to take place to-morrow, it was better to leave the remedy to be provided for in any case of difficulty that might unexpectedly arise, &c. The amendment was negatived, and the resolution passed. Mr. Tazewell was appointed teller on the part of the Senate. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, February 8, 1825. Mr. TAYLOR, from 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, reported in part the same resolution reported to and adopted by the Senate; which was passed. Mr. P. P. Barbour and Mr. Taylor were appointed tellers on the part of the House. FEBRUARY 9, 1825. The House sent a message to the Senate that this House is ready to receive them, in pursuance of the resolutions of the two houses of yesterday. IN THE PRESENCE OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, At 12 o'clock precisely the members of the Senate entered the hall, preceded by their Sergeant-at-Arms, and having the President of the Senate at their head, who was invited to a seat on the right hand of the Speaker of the House. Seats were then assigned the Senators, who took their seats together in front of the Speaker's chair, and toward the right hand of the entrance. The President of the Senate (Mr. Gaillard) then rose and stated that the certificates forwarded by the electors from each State would be delivered to the tellers. Mr. Tazewell, of the Senate, and Messrs. John W. Taylor and Philip P. Barbour, on the part of the House, took their seats as tellers at the Clerk's table. The President of the Senate then opened two packets, one received by messenger and the other by the mail, containing the certificates of the votes of the State of New Hampshire. One of these was then read by Mr. Tazewell, while the other was compared with it by Messrs. Taylor and Barbour. The whole having been read, and the votes of New Hampshire declared, they were set down by the clerks of the Senate and House of Representatives, seated at different tables. Thus the certificates from all the States were gone through with. The tellers then left the Clerk's table, aud, presenting themselves in front of the Speaker, Mr. Tazewell delivered their report of the votes given; which was then handed to the President of the Senate, who again read it to the two houses, as follows: The President of the Senate then rose and declared that no person had received a majority of the votes given for President of the United States; that ANDREW JACKSON, JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, and WILLIAM H. CRAWFORD were the three persons who had received the highest number of votes, and that the remaining duties in the choice of President now devolved on the House of Representatives. He further declared that JOHN C. CALHOUN, of South Carolina, having received 182 votes, was duly elected Vice-President of the United States, to serve four years from the 4th of March next. The members of the Senate then retired. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, February 9, 1825. The Speaker directed the roll of the House to be called by States, and the members of the respective delegations to take their seats in the order in which the States should be called, beginning at the right hand of the Speaker. The delegations took their places accordingly, ballot-boxes were distributed to each delegation by the Sergeant-at-Arms, and the Speaker directed that the balloting should proceed. The ballots having all been deposited in the boxes, tellers were named by the respective delegations, being one from ea h State in the Union. Mr. Webster, of Massachusetts, was appointed by those tellers who sat at one table, and Mr. Randolph, of Virginia, by those at the other, to announce the result at the balloting. After the ballots were counted out, Mr. Webster rose and said: Mr. SPEAKER: The tellers of the votes at this table have proceeded to count the ballots contained in the box set before them. The result they find to be that there are For JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, of Massachusetts.... 13 votes 7 votes. 4 votes Mr. Randolph, from the other table, made a statement corresponding with that of Mr. Webster in the facts, but varying in the phraseology so as to say that Mr. Adams, Mr. Jackson, and Mr. Crawford had received the votes of so many States, instead of so many votes. The Speaker then stated the result to the House, and announced that John Quincy Adams, having a majority of the votes of these United States, was duly elected President of the same for four years, commencing with the 4th day of March next. On motion of Mr. Taylor, of New York, a committee was ordered to be appointed, to notify the President of the United States and the President-elect the result of the ballot. IN SENATF, February 11, 1825. Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to cause to be transmitted to John C. Calhoun, of South Carolina, Vice-President-elect of the United States, notification of his election to that office, and that the President of the Senate do make and sign certificate in the following words, viz: “Be it known, That the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America being convened at the city of Washington on the second Wednesday of February, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and twenty-five, the underwritten, President of the Senate pro tempore, did, in the presence of the said Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and count all the votes of the electors for a President and for a Vice-President of the United States; whereupon it appeared that John C. Calhoun, of South Carolina, had a majority of the votes of the electors as Vice-President; by all which it appears that John C. Calhoun, of South Carolina, has been duly elected Vice-President of the United States, agreeably to the Constitution. "In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand this day of February, 1825." And that the President of the Senate do cause the certificate aforesaid to be laid before the President of the United States, with this resolution. A PROPOSITION TO INQUIRE INTO THE LEGALITY OF THE CERTIFICATES OF THE VOTES OF THE PREVIOUS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, May 10, 1828. Mr. Wilde moved the following resolution, which was referred: "Resolved, That a message be sent to the Senate of the United States respectfully requesting that body to transmit to this House, if in their possession, copies of the several certificates and lists of all the votes given for President and Vice-President on the first Wednesday of December, 1824, or of so many thereof as were received, opened, and counted in this House on the second Wednesday in Febritary, 1825, when the persons who fill the offices of President and Vice-President were ascertained and declared." Mr. Wilde said, upon submitting this resolution, a word or two of explanation might be expected from him, and perhaps was necessary. He would be as brief as possible. At the last election of President he had the honor to be a member of that House. While the certificates and lists of the votes were in the act of being read it struck him that, in some of them, it did not appear the requisitions of the Constitution had been complied with. The twelfth article, it would be borne in mind, provided that the election shall be by ballot, and the electors shall name in their ballots the persons voted for as President, and, on distinct ballots, the persons voted for as Vice-President. It had then appeared to him that the certificates from some of the States did not set forth, or, at least, did not explicitly set forth a vote by ballot, and by distinct ballots. It He did not mean to create a sensation here or elsewhere. Nothing could be further from his intention than to controvert the validity of that election. He rose, not to lament over the past, nor to indulge gloomy forbodings for the future, but to state facts; to draw from events gone by, warning and security for the time to come. was a grave question how far the vote of a State might be affected by a departure from the forms of voting prescribed by the Constitution. It was also an interesting and delicate inquiry, worthy of much calm and serious thought, to whom the power and daty of determining the fact of such a departure belonged. Into these questions he did not now propose to enter. He would not profess that his mind was made up. He intended studiously to avoid indicating any opinion at this time. They were, he considered, of some magnitude and difficulty, and he felt them to be so at the period alluded to, when they had first occurred to him. He did not then venture to take upon himself the responsibility of causing them to be agitated; neither his confidence nor his experience in public affairs warranted him in presenting a suggestion, the ultimate consequences of which it was difficult to foresee. He communicated his impressions, however, to two gentlemen near him, one of them then his colleague, now the governor of Georgia; the other-a friend he hoped he might call him, for he had found him such-for whose talents and character he had the highest respect; a gentleman who had since been translated to the Senate, (Mr. McLane.) The probable results of such a suggestion were considered during the very short interval during which deliberation was possible. It was imagined that, if the difficulty were presented, a protracted discussion would arise, public feeling might become highly excited, and all the evils of a contested election for Chief Magistrate be felt throughout the Union. His uncertainty was increased in consequence of some of the certificates having been already read before they had attracted his notice. These could not be obtained for inspection. The bearing of such a question upon the election, therefore, was, in every respect, matter of doubtful conjecture. Under all the circumstances his friends did not encourage him to introduce the subject. He would not say they advised him against it. Whatever responsibility attached to his silence on that occasion belonged to himself. He did not seek to conceal or to divide it. He admitted that he hesitated, doubted, and, in the interval, the event of the election was announced. Had the objections apparent on these certificates been then urged-supposing them to be well founded, and this House to be the constitutional judge of their sufficiency, and the validity of the votes, the issue of that election might have been different. He had not, in this instance, framed a theory and then sought out facts to support it. He had collected facts, and if he was not mistaken, they were worthy of a passing notice and might lead to something practical. Since the commencement of the present session he had examined these certificates with as much attention as his other duties would allow; and if the House should indulge him in calling for them, they would be believed to be found, although exhibiting almost every variety of form, to agree substantially with the abridged statement which he should present. The return from Delaware did not certify that the electors voted by ballot, but specified the vote of each elector thus: "A. B. votes for C. D. as President. "E. F. votes for G. H. as President," &c.; fairly authorizing the inference, as he apprehended, that the vote was viva voce. The return from New York specifies that the electors voted by ballot, and named, in distinct ballots, the persons voted for as President and Vice-President. The return of Rhode Island agrees in effect with that of New York. The return of Missouri did not, Mr. W. believed, certify that the electors voted by ballot or by distinct ballots. That of Vermont he conceived did not exhibit a vote by ballot, and by distinct ballots. That of Tennessee presented distinct ballots, and so also of Connecticut, New Hampshire, Maine, and Maryland. The electors of Mississippi seem to have voted by ballot; but it did not appear that they gave distinct ballots for each office. From the returns of Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Kentucky, enough appeared to warrant the inference that they voted by ballot, and by distinct ballots. Illinois seemed to have voted by ballot, but not by distinct ballots. The return of South Carolina does not state explicitly that the electors voted by ballot, and by distinct ballots; but it shows a separate vote, and the ballots themselves are forwarded. Indiana seems to have voted by ballot; but the return does not allege distinct ballotings. The return of Alabama says the electors proceeded to vote pursuant to the law and Constitution; but does not specify the mode of voting in direct terms, whether by distinct ballotings or otherwise. That of Massachusetts appears to be strictly correct and formal. It says the electors voted by ballot for President and Vice-President, having named in distinct ballots the person voted for as President and the person voted for as Vice-President. The return of Virginia did not specify that the electors voted by ballot. Separate returns were made of the votes for President and Vice-President; but it did not appear in terms that either vote was by ballot. The return of Georgia was similar to that of Virginia, except that the electors used the word ballot. The electors of North Carolina seemed to have voted by ballot, but did not aver that it was by distinct ballots, and perhaps the fairest inference from the language of the return was, that only one balloting was had. The return of Louisiana was, in effect, like that of North Carolina. Mr. W. did not wish to be understood as asserting that the votes he had taken from these documents to assist his memory were free from error, nor that the construction be put upon the language used in them was the correct one. The phraseology was so different as to admit of a great variety of interpretation. He protested likewise, that he did not intend to say or to insinuate anything against the mode in which the electors had endeavored to discharge their duty. They had, doubtless, acted according to established usage in their respective States. Many, perhaps all of them, were much his superiors in sagacity and experience, and he was among the last who could be capable of treating them with any disrespect. He did not mean to intimate that the votes thus given were in fact invalid by the Constitution, or that any tribunal had been created having power to declare them so. Upon that subject he forbore expressing an opinion. What he wished to say was this: A great diversity among these certificates existed. Some of them were open to exception. When the Constitution prescribed a particular mode of doing an act, he took it for granted that mode ought to be followed. If it was departed from, there might be room to impugn the act done; aud the mere discussion of such a question, in particular cases, might disturb the public tranquillity and lead to tumult and confusion.. If, upon the occasion referred to, the votes of those States which, as he supposed, were liable to exception, had, in fact, been objected to, and this House had undertaken to pronounce them null, the votes of Delaware, Mississippi, Vermont, Missouri, Virginia, North Carolina, Louisiana, Indiana, and Illinois, might, by possibility, have been lost. In that event, if a hasty calculation of his were not correct, the result would have been to take from one candidate twenty-eight votes, leaving him with seventyone; to take from another candidate eleven votes, leaving him with seventy-three; to deprive a third candidate of twenty-six votes, leaving him only fifteen, and thus excluding him from the House, while the fourth candidate, losing on three, and being left with thirty-four votes, would have been brought into it as one of the three from whom the choice was to be made. It was impossible to reflect an instant, without perceiving how momentous, at that time, must have been the investigation of such questions. He desired, if possible, to prevent in future the occurrence of such a state of things. He was, he trusted, no political agitator. He desired not to disturb men's minds as to the past, but to seek a preventive against prospective, and he hoped distant, but not improbable evils. How it was to be sought, he might not then be prepared to say. The wisdom of that House would, no doubt, find it, if they thought proper to commence the search. The first step was to obtain the information those certificates would afford. He asked for them by a resolution, which gentlemen of skill and experience in parliamentary precedent had kindly enabled him to place in what he conceived to be the established and respectful form of asking for papers in the possession of the Senate. He regretted, even on this subject, having so long occupied the floor. Other gentlemen might not, perhaps, attach to it the same importance he did, but he should not feel justified in withholding this information any longer, and, unless he deceived himself, the people of the United States and future electors would find in it matter of sufficient pith and moment to secure him from the imputation of wasting any portion of that valuable time, so much of which had been devoted to presiden ial questions of another character. This was no party measure. He intended to provoke no discussion. It was at least doubtful whether any act of legislation was necessary or expedient. But the information might be at once curious and useful, and gentlemen would vote to obtain or refuse it as they thought proper. Without the warning it would afford, such returns might be made again, and some wiser or bolder politician be found to challenge them exactly at the right moment of a crisis decisive of the fate of men, and deeply affecting even the destinies of the republic. Mr. Little thought there was no need of agitating this subject, particularly at so late a period in the session. The elections in the States were not subject to the revision of Congress, and if the certificates stated truly the result of such elections, it was to be inferred that they were held according to the law and Constitution, unless the contrary were made to appear. He therefore moved that the resolution be laid upon the table, which motion prevailed-ayes 80, noes 37. ELECTION FOR THE ELEVENTH TERM. ANDREW JACKSON, President. IN SENATE, February 2, 1829. Mr. TAZEWELL offered the following, which was adopted: 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 of President and Vice-President of the United States, and of notifying the persons elected of their election. Ordered, That Mr. Tazewell, Mr. Sanford, and Mr. Webster be the committee on the part of the Senate. |