ulating power and declared "that in case there
shall be no President of the Senate at the seat of government on the
arrival of the persons intrusted with the lists of votes of the
electors, then such persons shall deliver the lists of votes in
their custody into the office of the Secretary of State to be safely
kept and delivered over as soon as may be to the President of the
Senate."

What does this signify? That it was a simple question of custody, of
safe and convenient custody, and there is just as much reason to say
that the Secretary of State being the recipient of those votes had a
right to count them as to say that the other officer designated as
the recipient of the votes, the President of the Senate, had a right
to count them.

Now, here is another fact a denial of which cannot be safely
challenged. Take the history of these debates upon the formation of
the Federal Constitution from beginning to end, search them, and no
line or word can be discovered that even suggests any power whatever
in any one man over the subject, much less in the President of the
Senate, in the control of the election of the President or the
Vice-President. Why, sir, there is the invariable rule of
construction in regard to which there can be no dispute, that the
express grant of one thing excludes any other. Here you have the
direction to the President of the Senate that be shall receive these
certificates, or if absent that another custodian shall receive
them, hold them during his absence and pass them over to him as soon
as may be, and that then he shall in the presence of the two houses
of Congress "open all the certificates." There is his full measure
of duty; it is clearly expressed; and then after that follows the
totally distinct duty, not confided to him, that "the votes shall
then be counted."

I doubt very much whether any instrument not written by an inspired
hand was more clear, terse, frugal of all words except those
necessary to express its precise meaning, than the Constitution of
the United States. It would require the greatest ingenuity to
discover where fewer words could be used to accomplish a plain end.
How shall it be that in this closely considered charter, where every
word, every punctuation was carefully weighed and canvassed, they
should employ seven words out of place when two words in place would
have fulfilled their end? If it had been intended to give this
officer the power to count, how easy