The case of Tennessee did not from this point of view appear as strong as that of Louisiana. But it is difficult to see how the Republicans could have consistently rejected the vote of Tennessee after having nominated and elected a citizen of Tennessee as Vice-President of the United States. It is certainly implied in the Constitution of the United States that no man is {24} eligible to the office of Vice-President unless he be at the time of his election a citizen of a "State" of the Union. The Constitution implies that the Vice-President shall have the same qualifications as the President; and it distinctly says that in giving their vote, the electors in each "State" shall vote for two persons, "of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same State with themselves." If an inhabitant of Tennessee could be lawfully Vice-President of the United States, it does certainly seem implied that Tennessee was, at the time, a "State" of the Union in regular standing. However this may have been, the President was certainly correct in saying that Congress was vested with full power over the count of the electoral vote, and that the Executive had no control over it whatsoever. It was a bit of harmless good humor that he signed the resolution as a perfunctory matter, and it was calculated to improve the temper of the somewhat irritated members of Congress. [Sidenote: The twenty-second joint rule.] Congress was not, however, formally notified of the fact that he had signed the measure until after the counting of the vote had been finished, and the two Houses met the exigency by the enactment of what was known as "the twenty-second joint rule," according to which the consent of both Houses was required to count the electoral vote from any "State" or any body or place professing to be a "State." As a matter of fact, the Vice-President, Mr. Hamlin, declared that he had in his possession returns from the "States" of Louisiana and Tennessee, but held it to be his duty not to present them, and he did not present them. He knew that the President had signed the joint resolution, although Congress had not been officially notified of it, and he acted under the {25} resolution as law. The joint rule would have required the presentation of these votes to the joint meeting of the two Houses, and would have required the concurrence of the two Houses, acting separately, to have included them in the count. The joint rule was, therefore, not applied to the case for which it was enacted, but it remained unrepealed for more than ten years, and then showed itself a sort of Nemesis to its creators. [Sidenote: Reconstruction in Tennessee continued.]