The resolution was adopted by a vote of 90 to 67, but the concurrence of the two Houses did not end the matter. When the votes of Missouri were announced by the President of the Senate and handed to the tellers, Mr. Livermore, of New Hampshire, a member of the House, addressing the President and the Speaker, objected to them on the ground that Missouri was not a State in the Union. The Senate thereupon retired, a motion to that effect having been put by the President. The Senate does not appear to have taken any action upon the objection, but in the House a long debate took place on a resolution that the votes ought to be counted. Mr. Randolph made himself the most conspicuous person in this discussion, and spoke upon the question with characteristic violence of language. Mr. Clay came to the rescue with an argument intended to show that the President of the Senate had acted erroneously in putting the question on the retirement of the Senate, the objection having been already provided for by the joint resolution. On his motion the subject was laid on the table, and the Senate was invited to return. The count then proceeded, and the result was declared in accordance with the prescribed form. The votes given are shown in the table on the opposite page.

As soon as the announcement had been made, Mr. Floyd, of Virginia, and after him Mr. Randolph, demanded to know what had become of the votes of Missouri. Their voices were drowned by cries of "Order!" and they were required to resume their seats. The Senate then retired, and Mr. Randolph made another violent speech, which he closed by proposing a series of resolutions reciting that the votes of Missouri have been counted, but that the announcement of the whole number of electors appointed, and of the votes given by them, has not been declared "agreeably to the provisions of the Constitution of the United States, and that therefore the proceeding has been irregular and illegal." While Mr. Randolph was reducing these resolutions to writing, a motion was made and carried to adjourn, and nothing more was heard of them.

The second inauguration of Mr. Monroe took place on the 5th of March, 1821, the 4th was Sunday, in the hall of the House of Representatives. The ceremony was a simple one, but the company was as large as could be crowded into a room which was by no means spacious. The President occupied a platform in front of the Speaker's chair, and the Chief Justice

* One elector in each of the States of Pennsylvania, Mississippi, and Tennessee died after appointment, and before the meetings of the electors.

stood by his side while he delivered his inaugural address. So dense was the throng that fears were entertained as to the safety of the crowd.

Questions concerning the presidential electoral system and the electoral count were much discussed during Mr. Monroe's administration, and at one time the prospect of submitting to the States for ratification an amendment of the Constitution, so that all elections might be uniform, seemed to be extremely

good. The proposition had originated when the mishap at the election of 1800-01 was fresh in the minds of our public men, and when the necessity of guarding against a recurrence of it seemed imperative. It was then urged, as a part of the new system of choosing one person as President and another as Vice-President, that all the electors should be chosen by popular vote, the States to be divided for that purpose into districts. Although the matter was somewhat discussed in the newspapers from time to time, it does not appear to have been heard of again in Congress until the close of 1813. On December 20 of that year, Mr. Pickens, of North Carolina, introduced in the House a proposition to amend the Constitution in this respect, and made a long speech in support of the measure. He referred to the popular excitement which had prevailed in his State in consequence of the act of the legislature of North Carolina depriving the people of the right to choose electors, in 1812, as the reason for bringing the matter to the attention of Congress. The resolution for submitting the amendment to the States was negatived after some debate, 57 voting in favor of, and 70 against it.

Mr. Pickens introduced the subject again on one or two occasions after this defeat, but he did not press the amendment further until 1816. In December of that year he once more presented his resolution, in a new form, embracing two propositions. It provided that the States should be divided into districts for the choice of representatives in Congress, and also into single districts for the choice of electors. After some debate in Committee of the Whole, the House adopted the principle of the district system for representatives by a vote of 86 to 38. That part of the system which related to electors was approved by 87 votes against 51; but, as this was not a two-thirds majority, the House never took the subject up.

At the next session two amendments, in almost identical words, were introduced in the Senate by Mr. Dickerson, of New Jersey, and by Mr. Macon, of North Carolina. Subsequently the proposition relating to electors was changed so that one elector should be chosen from each representative district, and that the two additional electors for each State should be appointed "in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct," following the words of the Constitution. This amendment was negatived by 20 in favor to 13 opposed, — not two thirds. Again in 1818 Mr. Sanford, of New York, introduced

the amendment in the Senate, by instruction of the New York legislature, as on previous occasions it had been introduced by others according to instructions from the legislatures of New Jersey and North Carolina. This time a great deal of attention was paid to the matter. It was debated at much length, three times referred to committees, and at last passed by a vote of 28 to 10. In the House it was laid on the table by 79 to 73. Introduced in the Senate again in 1819 by Mr. Dickerson, it was again passed, this time without debate, by 29 to 13. Having been debated in the House, it was agreed to by the Committee of the Whole; but when it was reported to the House it was laid on the table, and never taken up. Yet at the same session Mr. Smith, of North Carolina, introduced this identical amendment, and, after debate, it was passed to a third reading by a vote of 103 to 59; but on the question of its passage it was lost, 92 voting in favor of and 54 against it, not two thirds. The proposition never again came so near to success; but it was not abandoned, and as late as March, 1822, the Senate again passed the amendment by 29 to 11. The House did not take the matter up for consideration.

Another effort was made during Mr. Monroe's administration to deal with the matter of the electoral count. The Committee on the Judiciary, of the Senate, was instructed to consider the subject, and Mr. Van Buren reported a bill which, after amendment, was passed on April 19, 1824. It covered the whole ground of the election and the count. The electors were to make five lists of their votes instead of three. One of these was to be sent to the seat of government by a messenger, two were to be deposited in the post-office and forwarded by two successive mails to the President of the Senate, and the other two were to be delivered to the judge of the district in which the electoral meeting was held. This was the only change proposed in the method of electing the President. The important section was the fifth, as follows:

SECTION 5. That at twelve o'clock of the day appointed for counting the votes that may be given at the next election for President and Vice-President, the Senate and House of Representatives shall meet in the hall of the House of Representatives, and on all future occasions in the centre room of the Capitol, at which meeting the President of the Senate shall be the presiding officer, but no debate shall be had nor question taken. The packet containing the certificates from the electors of each State shall then be opened

by the President of the Senate, beginning with the State of New Hampshire and going through to Georgia, in the order in which the thirteen original States are enumerated in the Constitution, and afterwards through the other States in the order in which they were respectively admitted into the Union; and, if no exceptions are taken thereto, all the votes contained in such certificates shall be counted; but if any exceptions be taken, the person taking the same shall state it in writing directly, and not argumentatively, and sign his name thereto; and if the exception be seconded by one member from the Senate and one member from the House of Representatives, and each of whom shall sign the said exception as having seconded the same, the exception shall be read by the President of the Senate, and then each House shall immediately retire, without question or debate, to its own apartment, and shall take the question on the exception, without debate, by ayes and noes. So soon as the question shall be taken in either House, a message shall be sent to the other informing them of the decision of the question, and that the House sending the message is prepared to resume the count; and when such message shall have been received by both Houses, they shall meet again in the same room as before, and the count shall be resumed. And if the two Houses have concurred in rejecting the vote or votes objected to, such vote or votes shall not be counted. The vote of one State being thus counted, another shall, in like manner, be called, and the certificate of the votes of the State thus called shall be proceeded on as is hereinbefore directed; and so on, one after another, in the order above mentioned, until the count shall be completed.

The bill was sent to the House for concurrence, where it was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and was reported back by Mr. Webster on the 10th of May without amendment. It was then referred to the Committee of the Whole, and was never taken up for consideration.