[Fifty-fifth Congress, first session.]

JOHN A. HENDERSON, of Florida.

The term of Wilkinson Call as Senator from the State of Florida expired March 3, 1897. By the constitution of the State of Florida the legislature of that State was chosen in the month of October 1896, but did not meet until in the month of April, 1897. A special session of Congress having been called to begin on the 15th day of March, 1897, the governor of the State of Florida on the 6th day of March, 1897, appointed James A. Henderson to fill the vacancy caused by the expiration of the term of Mr. Call. The credentials of Mr. Henderson were presented in the Senate March 16, 1897, and his right to a seat in the Senate was discussed. The credentials were referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections, and attention having been called to a defect in the credentials, amended credentials were presented March 25, 1897, and referred to the same committee. No report was submitted by the committee, nor was any further action taken by the Senate in the matter. On the 14th day of May, 1897, Stephen R. Mallory was elected a Senator from the State of Florida for the term beginning March 4, 1897, and duly appeared and took his seat as such Senator.

The history of the case here given consists of a statement of the proceedings in the Senate in said case as published in the Congressional Record and extracts from the remarks of Mr. Hoar and Mr. Pasco in regard to referring the credentials of Mr. Henderson to the Committee on Privileges and Elections.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE SENATE.

WEDNESDAY, March 16, 1897.

Mr. PASCO. I present the credentials of Mr. Henderson, who comes here by appointment of the governor of the State of Florida. The credentials were read, as follows:

"STATE OF FLORIDA, EXECUTIVE DepartmeNT. "I, W. D. Bloxham, governor of the State of Florida, by virtue of the authority in me vested by subdivision 2 of section 3 of Article I of the Constitution of the United States, have, by reason of a vacancy happening from the expiration of the term of Hon. Wilkinson Call as United States Senator from the State of Florida on the 4th day of March, 1897, and during the recess of the legislature of said State, made temporary appointment of Hon. John A. Henderson, of Tallahassee, Leon County, Fla., who is duly qualified therefor under the Constitution of the United States, to be Senator in the Congress of the United States from the State of Florida from said 4th day of March, 1897, until the legislature of said State shall fill such vacancy.

"In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the great seal of the State of Florida to be affixed.

"Done at Tallahassee, the capital, this 6th day of March, A. D. 1897.

Mr. Pasco stated that Mr. Hende son was in waiting and asked that he be allowed to take the oath of office.

Mr. Allen moved that the credentials be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections.

Mr. PASCO. I am not willing to consent to that course. The case of Mr. Henderson is different in many respects from the two cases which have already been referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections, and I see no reason why there should be any delay whatever in admitting him to a seat. When I presented similar credentials myself four years ago, without any objection, without any motion, I was admitted to my seat; and Mr. Henderson's case is precisely the same as that which was then presented to the Senate.

Mr. HOAR. I desire to call the attention of the Senate and of the Senator from Florida to the fact that there is a clear illegality in this proceeding, as disclosed by the credentials themselves. The governor has undertaken to appoint this gentleman to hold office until the legislature shall elect. He has no such power. He can only appoint, under the constitution, until the next meeting of the legislature. That has been extended by an ancient, well-settled construction to the time when the legislature either elects after meeting or adjourns without an election, but it never has been contended by anybody from the foundation of the Government that a governor could appoint until the legislature elected. They may meet and adjourn, and meet again and adjourn half a dozen times without an election. Strictly construed, this is an appointment not merely for six years, but forever, if the legislature of Florida do not elect. But, at any rate, the governor made this appointment supposing that he could appoint a man who would hold office certainly for the rest of the term of six years if the legislature of Florida did not agree. Non constat, if he were to appoint a man for a few days or weeks, he would not have appointed a very different person. So these credentials differ from all the other cases in the fact that they are materially defective themselves. Certainly the proposition which I make is grave enough to be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections.

But I also desire, now I am up, to say to the Senator from Florida that, having studied this matter as thoroughly as I can, it seems to me that all these cases-the three which have now been presented and some others which have been settled by the Senate are governed and ought to be governed by one simple principle, which would require all three of these applicants to be admitted, as it required Mr. Blair and Mr. Bell to be admitted, but which also would require the overruling of some recent and, it appears to me, quite erroneous action of the Senate. There ought to be a well-considered, careful dealing with this whole subject, first by the report of the committee, and afterwards by the action of the Senate. It is very much more important that we should extricate ourselves from the mud in which we have got on this matter of executive appointment than that any one gentleman should have the right of sitting a week or two earlier or later in this body.

When the Senator from Florida himself came in, everybody knew that the matter was merely formal. His election by his legislature in the course of two or three weeks was as sure as any such thing in the future ever would be, and to have kept him out while the committee scrutinized his credentials would have cost him his place on committees which he had earned by long service and would have left also the seat vacant. Therefore, his colleagues on both sides of the Chamber thought it was not worth while to raise the question.

Mr. President, I for one, as at present advised, after very careful study of the matter, agree with the Senator from Florida in one particular. I think-and I go further than I understood him to go-I think that the Constitution intended that this body should be always full, and that its framers did not mean to have any difficulties in the way. They were not quite so sure that the State legislatures would always elect or that Senators elected would always accept in those days. The seats here were not the objects of ambition when the Constitution was framed that they have become since. The powers of the United States Government were few-at any rate, those exercised were few-the subjects of our jurisdiction were limited. It was a painful and disagreeable thing in those days for a man to leave his home for the seat of government and travel here, and in many of the States there were fines established by law for the punishment of persons who refused to accept legislative and other public offices. I might add further that down even to Mr. Webster's time one of the serious dangers which Mr. Webster spoke of as menacing our Government was that it might fall to pieces by the failure of the State legislatures to elect Senators and of the people to elect Representatives. He contemplated that as one of the serious dangers to our Government down to 1825 or 1830.

It seems to me that the Constitution meant to say that when the legislature is in session it shall choose a Senator, and that if the office be vacant when the legislature is not in session a Senator shall be appointed ad interim by the great authority representing the State in all other of its great functions, the governor or executive, who in those days appointed the judges and the great officers of the State. There was a simple, ample, sufficient method of providing for the keeping of seats in this body always occupied by the representatives of the different States, and all the subtleties and refinements which have been born of political desires where the votes of Senators have been affected by the question whether the man was a silver man or a gold man, a Democrat or a Republican, have produced infinite mischiefs and have gone far to get us into difficulty, and I hope we shall go back to what was the simple and plain

constitutional doctrine which was involved in the action by the Senate in the cases of Blair and Bell, and which was laid down in the report of the majority of the Committee on Privileges and Elections in the cases of Lee Mantle and others.

(Cong. Rec., vol. 30, pp. 26, 27, and 29.)

The motion to refer the credentials to the Committee on Privileges and Elections was agreed to.

(Cong. Rec., vol. 30, p. 34.)

THURSDAY, March 25, 1897.

Mr. Pasco presented the amended credentials of Mr. John A. Henderson, appointed a Senator from the State of Florida.

The credentials were read and referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections.

(Cong. Rec., vol. 30, p. 261.)

[Fifty-sixth Congress, first session.]

MATTHEW S. QUAY, of Pennsylvania.

The term of Matthew S. Quay, a Senator from the State of Pennsylvania, expired March 3, 1899. The legislature charged with the duty of choosing his suceessor failed to elect. On the 21st day of April, 1899, the governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania appointed Matthew S. Quay a Senator from said State to supply the vacancy in the Senate of the United States occasioned by the expiration of the term of said Matthew S. Quay.

On the 4th day of December, 1899, the credentials of Mr. Quay were presented in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections; also a resolution that Mr. Quay be admitted as a Senator from the State of Pennsylvania in accordance with the appointment by the governor of said State. On the 23d day of January, 1900, the committee reported a resolution in the case of Mr. Quay, that he was not entitled to a seat in the Senate as a Senator from the State of Pennsylvania. This resolution was accompanied by the report of the committee and also the report of the minority of the committee, which alleged the right of Mr. Quay to a seat in the Senate.

After a full debate the resolution reported by the committee was adopted by a vote of 33 to 32. The history of the case here given consists of a statement of the proceedings of the Senate in the case as published in the Congressional Record, the report of the Committee on Privileges and Elections, the report of the minority of the committee, a statement of the days on which the debates occurred, with a reference to the record of the same, a portion of the remarks of Senators in such debate, a statement of the vote on the amendment to the resolution reported by the committee, and a statement of the vote on the adoption of the resolution.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE SENATE.

MONDAY, December 4, 1899.

Mr. Penrose presented the credentials of Matthew S. Quay, appointed by the governor of Pennsylvania a Senator from that State, which were read, as follows: "In the name and by the authority of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, executive department.

“To all to whom these presents shall come, greeting:

"Whereas a vacancy exists in the representation of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in the Senate of the United States by reason of the expiration of the constitutional term of the Hon. Matthew Stanley Quay and the failure of the general assembly of the Commonwealth to elect his successor: Therefore, know ye, that reposing especial trust and confidence in the prudence, integrity, and ability of the Hon. Matthew Stanley Quay, I, William A. Stone, governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, in conformity to the provisions of clause 2 of section 3 of Article I of the Constitution of the United States, have appointed, and do by these presents commission, him a Senator to represent this State in the Senate of the United States, to supply the vacancy in the Senate of the United States occasioned by the expiration of the term of office of the Hon. Matthew Stanley Quay, which occurred on the 4th day of March last. He is, therefore, to have and to hold the said office, together with all the rights, powers, and privileges thereunto belonging, or by law in any wise appertaining, until the next meeting of the legislature of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, or until his successor shall be duly elected and qualified, if he shall so long behave himself well.

"This appointment to compute from the day of the date hereof.

"Given under my hand and the great seal of the State, at the city of Harrisburg, this 21st day of April, in the year of our Lord 1899 and of the Commonwealth the one hundred and twenty-third.

"[SEAL.]

"By the governor:

"W. W. GRIEST, Secretary of the Commonwealth."

WILLIAM A. STONE.

The credentials were referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections. Mr. Chandler submitted the following resolution, which was referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections:

"Resolved, That Matthew S. Quay be admitted as a Senator from the State of Penn

sylvania in accordance with his appointment made on April 21, 1899, by the governor of the State."

Mr. Burrows presented a memorial in the nature of a remonstrance against the seating of the appointee by the governor of the State of Pennsylvania, which was received and referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections.

Mr. Jones, of Arkansas, presented a remonstrance by 78 members of the legislature of Pennsylvania against the seating of M. S. Quay as a Senator from said State, which was also referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections.

(Cong. Rec., vol. 33, p. 1.)

THURSDAY, January 4, 1900,

Mr. Hoar asked and obtained leave of the Senate to make a statement in the nature of personal explanation, as follows:

"Mr. President. I receive in my mail daily a good many letters-and I dare say the same is true of all members of the Senate-appealing to me with great earnestness to vote to deny a seat in the Senate to a gentleman from Pennsylvania who claims a seat by reason of an appointment made in the recess of the legislature by the governor of that State. Some of the writers of these letters are Quakers-members of the Society of Friends; others are evidently very philanthropic persons; and I am to assume that they are very good judges of character, because their letters are full of personal compliments to myself [laughter], and I dare say the same is true of the letters received by other Senators. The proposition is, however, that I must voteand they are surprised at my having any doubt about it-to deny a seat in this body to the gentleman who claims it under an appointment on the ground of certain charges that they make against him in regard to his personal character and fitness for the office.

"A good many years ago I investigated the question of the right of the governor of a State to appoint, and I suppose I have made eight or ten elaborate speeches during the last fifteen years in favor of the proposition that whenever, during the recess of the legislature of a State there was a vacant seat in the representation of that State in the Senate, the governor had the right to fill it, and I have made three or four reports in favor of that proposition.

The Senate is the body, the court, the judge of the election of Senators. I am one of the sworn judges, and what these worthy gentlemen are asking me to do is, in substance, to stuff the ballot box and make a false return in my capacity as a sworn judge of elections because they think the governor of a State ought to have appointed somebody else.

"That is the attitude which these worthy gentlemen are taking, and I see that some newspapers of wide circulation in my own State affected to take the same view of the case. Of course the same principle would require Senators, if the legislature should elect this gentleman or some other against whom such charges can be maintained, to deny him a seat when the legislature has elected him. If the governor has no right to appoint or the legislature has no right to elect, then of course we do not admit the claimant. But if the governor have the right to appoint or the legis lature have the right to elect, and we declare that they have not appointed him or have not elected him when they have, we are doing exactly what is done by ballotbox stuffers and election judges who make false returns.

“I hope this little statement of mine regarding such communications—in which I am sure every member of this body, without exception, will concur-will answer as a reply to the great batch of letters I am getting on this subject.”

(Cong. Rec., vol. 33, p. 646.)

TUESDAY, January 23, 1900.

Mr. Turley, from the Committee on Privileges and Elections, reported a resolution in the case of Matthew S. Quay, who claims the right to a seat in the Senate as a Senator from the State of Pennsylvania. He also submitted the report of the Committee on Privileges and Elections in the said case; also the views of the minority of said committee.

The secretary read the resolution, as follows:

"Resolved, That the Hon. Matthew S. Quay is not entitled to take his seat in this body as a Senator from the State of Pennsylvania."

It was ordered that the resolution be placed on the Calendar and that the report of the Committee and the views of the minority be printed.

(Cong. Rec., vol. 33, p. 1051.)