By the official count of 9 Feb. 1825, the elec toral vote for President was found to stand as follows: Andrew Jackson, 99; John Quincy Adams, 84; William H. Crawford, 41; and Henry Clay, 37. The number of electoral votes necessary to a choice was 131. The ballot for Vice-President had been decisive; for John C. Calhoun had received 182 votes. The Con stitution limited the House of Representatives in its choice of a President to the three highest candidates. The first ballot gave Adams the vote of 13 States; Jackson that of seven States; and Crawford that of four States. There was great popular indignation, for Jackson had received 15 more electoral votes than Adams. And besides this the Jackson electors had received a great majority of the popular vote. A rumor became current that there had been a °corrupt bargain)) among the Adams and the Clay men. This seemed to be confirmed as soon as President Adams took his seat by the nomination of Mr. Clay for Secre tary of State. However, it was sufficiently shown later that this story rested upon no evi dence.
It was discovered by the official count of 8 Feb. 1837, that the electoral vote for Vice-Presi dent had been indecisive. The constitutional rule in such a easels that the Senate shall choose the Vice-President from the two highest num bers on the list. These were Richard M. John son and Francis Granger. Upon the motion of one of the members, the Senate proceeded to a viva voce vote. The result was 33 to 16 in favor of Mr. Johnson.
After the elections of 7 Nov. 1876, the first indications were that the Democratic party had chosen a majority of the electors. But the Re publican party managers immediately began to claim three Southern States whose votes were likely to decide the issue. These were Florida, Louisiana and South Carolina. When the day arrived for the meeting of the electoral colleges, two sets of electors voted in each of these States and in Oregon as well. Thus four States trans mitted double returns to the President of the Senate. Evidently a quarrel was before the country which might set up rival executives in the national government, or leave the nation without an executive. Whether it is agreeable to the Constitution for Congress to regulate by law the counting of the electoral vote, we will not here discuss. The only power relating to this subject, that is expressly granted, is to de termine the time of choosing the electors and the time when the electors shall meet. Laws had been enacted concerning the accepting and rejecting of electoral votes prior to 1877. The most discreet men in the government felt that Congress should devise some expedient for dealing with an unprecedented situation. The Electoral Commission Law was enacted. This passed the Senate 25 January, the House of Representatives 23 January and was approved 29 January. Its title was uAn act to provide for and regulate the counting of votes for President and Vice-President, and the decision of questions arising thereon, for the term com mencing 4 March It provided in detail for the official count as prescribed by the Con stitution. It ordered that this should begin on the first Thursday in February, which was the first day of the month, and that the returns should be acted upon in the alphabetical order of the States. After the reading of each certificate, the president of the Senate should call for ob jections. In cases which did not involve con flicting returns, the two Houses should pass upon the objections. They should separate for this purpose. No electoral vote should be re jected except by the affirmative vote of both Houses. Section II, the most remarkable part of the law, provided for the Electoral Commis sion, which was created to pass upon cases where there were double returns from a State. The Senate should choose five of its members by viva voce vote, on the Tuesday before the count began, to serve on the commission. The House of Representatives should likewise choose five members. Five associate justices of the Supreme Court were also to serve. The law designated four of these under the numbers of their respective circuits, the first, third, eighth and ninth. These were to select the fifth. When any case of double returns was reached in the official count, the certificates and papers relating thereto, together with all the objec tions filed in the joint meeting of the two Houses, were to be referred to the commission. This body should decide by a majority vote the questions; whether any and what votes re turned from a State are the votes provided for by the Constitution of the United States, and how many and what persons were duly ap pointed electors in such State. The decisions were to be final unless they were set aside by the vote of both Houses of Congress. The mem bers of the Commission were chosen on Tues day, 30 January. The Senate was Republican at the time, while the House of Representatives was Democratic. Three of the senators se lected were Republicans and two were Demo crats. The former were George F. Edmunds, Vermont; Oliver P. Morton, Indiana; and Frederick T. Frelinghuysen, New Jersey. The latter were Thomas F. Bayard, Delaware, and Allen G. Thurman, Ohio. In the House this proportion was reversed. The three Democratic members were Henry B. Payne, Ohio; Eppa Hun ton, Virginia, and Josiah Abbott, Massa chusetts. The two Republicans were James A. Garfield, Ohio, and George F. Hoar, Massa chusetts. Of the four justices designated by the law, Nathan Clifford and Stephen J. Field of the first and ninth circuits respectively were Democrats. William Strong and Samuel F. Miller, of the third and eighth circuits, were Republicans. Thus far the commission was equally divided. Moreover the arguments were likely to be so strong on both sides of the dif ferent questions that the decisions would in evitably follow party lines. While the law seemed to shift the burden of decision upon 15 men, it so operated that it was really imposed upon one man. It had been expected that the four associate justices would select Justice David Davis to be the 15th member of the com mission. Mr. Davis was independent in poli tics. But he had accepted an election to the United States Senate, which was thought to make it unsuitable for him to serve. Justice Joseph .P. Bradley of the fifth circuit was chosen. This made the commission consist of eight Republicans and seven Democrats. At the final sitting Senator Thurman was unable to serve on account of illness and Francis Kernan, New York, a Democrat, was substituted. The two most important United States laws per taining to Presidential elections were enacted 1 March 1792 and 23 Jan. 1845, respectively. The act of 1792 provides that the executive au thority of each State shall cause lists of the names of the electors of such State to be certi fied and delivered to the electors, and that the electors shall annex one of the said lists to each list of votes. The law of 1845 declares that each State may by law provide for the fill ing of any vacancy or vacancies Which may oc cur in its college of electors, when such col lege meets to give its electoral vote. Numer
ous cases came up in the count of 1877, to which these provisions were applicable. The Electoral Commission held four sittings. The first one began 2 February, when the returns from Florida were reached. It took a week to come to a decision in this case. The returns of the Hayes electors were certified by the gov ernor in office on the day when the electors met. But it was believed that the State returning board, which had declared for a Republican vic tory, had in canvassing the votes of the State rejected the returns from certain polling-places. On the other hand, the returns of the Tilden electors were certified by the attorney-general. And there was a duplicate of the same returns certified by a new Democratic governor. An additional cause of dispute in the case of Flor ida grew out of the charge that one of the Hayes electors held an office under the United States government at the time when he was elected, and was, therefore, ineligible. This ob jection was based upon the constitutional 'pro vision that no person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States shall be ap pointed an elector. The decision of the com mission was based upon the ground that the re turns of the Hayes electors were certified ac cording to the law of the United States, and that the returning board had operated under the laws of Florida. To set these returns aside would be to go behind the action of the State officers. This the commission was in competent to do. And it would be impossible to investigate the charges of fraud. As for the one elector who was objected to on the charge that he held an office under the United States, it was concluded after hearing evidence on both sides that he had properly resigned the office. The commission, therefore, held by a vote of eight to seven that the four Hayes electors were the lawful ones. This decision was reported 9 February. The Electoral Com mission was next in session 12-16 February, as the official count had now reached Louisiana. This State presented the spectacle of rival gov ernments. The Republican officers claimed au thority under the canvass of the State return ing board. The Democratic ones claimed that under the popular vote as cast they had been elected. The returns of the Tilden and the Hayes electors were certified by rival execu tives. The commission maintained that the Re publican government held office by the opera tion of the laws of the State. In this case, as in that of Florida, there were charges of fraud and ineligibility. But the commission could not go back of the certificate of the State authority. Accordingly the eight Hayes elec tors were held to be the rightful ones. The commission was again in session 21-23 Febru ary, to pass upon the returns from Oregon. The Republican party had carried the election but the governor, who was a Democrat, had certified to the election of only two of the Hayes electors. The third certificate was is sued to the highest Tilden elector on the ground that the third Hayes elector was a post master. As the two Republican electors re fused to meet with the Democratic one, both sides proceeded to fill the vacancies in the elec toral college. The Republican electors ap pointed the man from whom the governor had withheld the certificate. The one Tilden elec tor appointed two other Democrats. The gov ernor certified to the returns of the Tilden electors. Those of the other college were cer tified to by. the secretary of state. The reason ing by which the disputes about Florida and Louisiana were decided operated in this case in favor of the Tilden electors. But the com mission made a distinction. In those cases it had inquired whether the executive authority had carried out the laws of the State and had found that it had done so. Thus it was incom petent for the commission to inquire further. But in the case of Oregon it found that the governor had not carried out the laws. Ac cordingly the commission was competent to make him do so. Thus the three Hayes elec tors were recognized. On 26 February the re turns from South Carolina were submitted to the commission. The votes of the Hayes elec tors were duly certified by the governor. But fraud on the part of the returning board and intimidation at the polls were charged. On the second day the commission decided that the returns of the seven Hayes electors should be accepted. The decision in favor of the Hayes electors was made in every case by a party vote of eight to seven. Moreover the Senate voted on each occasion to accept the decision and the House of Representatives to reject it. As the count proceeded, six cases of disputed votes came up which were not referred to the Electoral Commission, as they did not involve conflicting returns. In the electoral colleges of Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin, respectively, vacancies had been caused by ineligibility, and the other electors had proceeded to fill the places. Some of the votes were objected to on this account. The two Houses concurred in accepting some of these and differed with respect to others. There was no concurrent vote to reject. It was in the early morning of 2 March, only two days before the date set by the Constitution for the existing administration to come to an end, that the result of the official count was an nounced. The vote as accepted stood Tilden and Hendricks 184, Hayes and Wheeler 185. Thus if the decision of the Electoral Commis sion had been different in the case of a single elector, the contest would have been decided in favor of the other party.
After this contest was settled there were numerous movements in Congress to amend the Constitution so as to provide for disputed elec tions. But none of them came to anything. Several laws on the subject were also intro duced. It was 10 years afterward that a law disposing of such cases was enacted, the date being 3 Feb. 1887. This act is a lengthy one and provides in detail for the certification of electors and the counting of electoral votes. Its great provision is that the States shall pro vide under their own laws by judicial or other methods of procedure to settle disputes as to the choice of electors. The decision arrived at within the State must be accepted. The only case that could arise for the national govern ment to settle would be that of rival tribunals within a State sustaining rival electors. The rule in such a case is that no vote can be re except by the affirmative vote of both Houses of Congress acting separately. See BALLOT; ELECTIONS.
Bibliography.— McCrary,