Page images
PDF
EPUB

After the conversation referred to by my colleague, I yielded to the advice of friends in the Senate and did not act upon my own impulses in the matter. Hence I did not offer the resolution that I desired and intended to offer. New to this body and entirely unfamiliar with the customs and usages of the Senate, I naturally attached weight to the advice and opinion of those older in the service and versed in the practices and precedents of the Senate. I was given to understand that, however much I might desire or demand an investigation, it was not the practice of the Senate to take jurisdiction of alleged acts or conduct prior to the election of a Senator and having no connection with the legality thereof. If this practice is to be now changed, I have no protest to make; on the contrary, I repeat I am willing and desirous that the investigation be made. I seek no shelter and shrink from no scrutiny into my public and private character.

I desire to say at this time that I am perfectly willing and desirous that this investigation shall be proceeded with. That has been my position from the beginning. I stand here now to say that much and to repeat it.

With reference to my rising at this time, I will state that I have been blamed for not speaking. I have also been criticised because it is alleged that I did say something. In justice to my colleague and myself with reference to what has been said in the newspapers (because these things so far are proceeding from newspaper allegations) I thought it my duty to say this much at this time.

(Cong. Rec., vol. 25, p. 137.)

After further discussion Mr. Gorman offered a substitute for the resolution offered by Mr. Hoar; which substitute offered by Mr. Gorman was read, as follows:

[ocr errors]

Resolved, That the Committee on Privileges and Elections be directed to inquire into and consider the question whether the Senate has authority or jurisdiction to investigate charges made against a Senator as to conduct or offenses occurring or committed prior to his election, not relating to his duty as Senator or affecting the integrity of his election."

(Cong. Rec., vol. 25, pp. 137, 138.)

The resolution and the substitute therefor introduced by Mr. Hoar and the substitute introduced by Mr. Gorman were the subject of debate in the Senate April 14, 1893, and April 15, 1893 (Cong. Rec., vol. 25, pp. 137, 138, 140–154, 155-159, 160164), but no vote was taken thereon.

[Extracts from remarks of Mr. Chandler in support of the substitute offered by Mr. Hoar for the resolution directing an inquiry into the charges against Senator Roach. Found in the Congressional Record, vol. 25, pp. 148, 149.]

*

*

*

*

*

"Mr. President, I know I have taken too much of the time of the Senate in bringing the precedents in England and in this country to the notice of Senators. I believe that upon all these precedents that it can not be fairly contended that it is a principle of American constitutional law that under no circumstances shall there be an investigation into the conduct of members committed before their election to Congress.

[blocks in formation]

"The facts in relation to Mr. Roach are to be found, in the first place, in the New York Recorder of March 14, 1893. The same facts are stated in the Philadelphia Press of March 15, 1893. The facts narrated in those two newspapers are taken from an interview in the Evening Star of August 15, 1879, with Mr. J. A. J. Cresswell, then president of the Citizens' National Bank, of Washington, D. C. There is an interview in the Recorder with Mr. Jacob Tome, an owner of two-thirds of the stock in the bank, which corroborates the statements made in that paper.

"There is also contained in the Recorder an interview with Mr. Thomas C. Pearsall, who succeeded Mr. Roach as cashier of the Citizens' National Bank, and he confirms the narrative.

"Moreover, the facts are to be found upon the records of the Government in the office of the Comptroller of the Currency, in the reports made by the Citizens' National Bank to that officer. Further, there has been published in the newspaper interviews with the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Roach]. There is an interview in the Recorder, and also one in the New York Sun of March 21, 1893. In the Recorder interview the Senator from North Dakota first said he had nothing to say; later he said he remembered the Creswell interview in the Star, but had forgotten the details; that if he had had any controversy with the bank it had all been settled. Then the following questions and answers appear:

"It is stated that the larger part of the money taken was returned to the bank? "Yes, I believe it was.

666

666
"Has it all been returned?

"I think so, but it was a long time ago and I can not say positively.

"No indictment was ever brought?

"No; there was never any attempt to prosecute.'

"The New York World of March 15, 1893, has a half-column interview with the Senator from North Dakota, where he says nothing pertinent to the issue presented by the resolution of the Senator from Massachusetts, except that he has not been a fugitive from justice and that the printed story is full of absurdities and extravagances.' There is no other denial.

"The New York Sun is, I suppose, recognized as a Democratic paper, friendly to the Democratic party, to the majority upon this floor, and to the present Administration, and in an editorial in this Democratic paper, the Sun, of Tuesday, March 21, 1893, all the facts in reference to the Senator from North Dakota are reiterated, and the question whether or not he ought to hold his seat in the Senate is discussed.

[blocks in formation]

"I will take occasion to read from the New York Sun, not the full statement which is there contained, because I do not wish and I have not wished to anticipate the facts, but this portion of the Sun's statement:

“In October, 1879, the report of the Comptroller of the Currency presented the sworn statement of the officers of the Citizens' National Bank containing this item: "Defalcation of late cashier, $18,483.54.'

[blocks in formation]

“I ask again, are not these facts sufficient to require an investigation by the Senate if they are to be taken as true? Here is a grave breach of trust alleged; here is a large embezzlement alleged upon the part of an officer of a national bank.

[blocks in formation]

"I do not believe that even my State's rights friend from Texas [Mr. Mills], who I see is honoring me with his attention, and the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Butler], who have hitherto announced their belief in the doctrine that it is beyond the power of the Senate of the United States to inquire into the acts of Senators before they are members, will be willing, when they come to consider the subject, to affirm it as a proposition of constitutional law that there can be no investigation, under any circumstances, into the acts of a Senator committed before he was a Senator.

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

"The elevated character of the Senate forbids the announcement of any such fatal doctrine as this. A few short weeks ago the Vice-President, upon taking the chair as presiding officer of the Senate, uttered a high tribute to the Senators before him. With his advent to the position came also a great political change, but I do not believe that the majority which now prevails here will be any less solicitous than the minority to maintain the reputation and character of the Senate.

"We shall differ on questions of finance and tariff and on measures of public administration; not, I trust, on questions which are to determine the estimation in which the Senate is to be held by the wise and the good men of all countries. But to refuse even to investigate the facts alleged against the Senator from North Dakota will turn into a sarcasm and a mockery the eulogium of the Vice-President when he came to preside over the Senate and declared it to be 'the most august deliberative assembly known to man.'

[ocr errors]

[Special session of the Senate, March 4, 1893; first session Fifty-third Congress and third session Fifty-third Congress.]

JOSEPH W. ADY v. JOHN MARTIN, of Kansas.

The credentials of John Martin as a Senator from the State of Kansas being in due form he was admitted to a seat in the Senate at the beginning of the special session of the Senate, March 4, 1893. Subsequently, a memorial signed by seventy-seven members of the Kansas legislature was presented in the Senate relating to the election of a United States Senator from the State of Kansas to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Hon. Preston B. Plumb. The memorial set out the facts from which it was claimed that the proceedings in the election of Mr. Martin to fill the vacancy aforesaid were irregular and illegal, and also set forth the subsequent election of Joseph W. Ady in a legal and formal manner. The grounds on which it was claimed that the proceedings of the legislature of Kansas in the election of Mr. Martin were illegal, are fully set forth in the remarks of Mr. Chandler in the debate on the case in the Senate as hereinafter set forth.

A resolution authorizing the Committee on Privileges and Elections to investigate the right of Mr. Ady to a seat in the Senate was introduced in the Senate and agreed to. Subsequently a resolution was introduced declaring that Mr. Martin was not entitled to a seat in the Senate as a Senator from the State of Kansas. This resolution was referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections. Still another resolution of the same import as the one last referred to was afterwards introduced in the Senate and debated, but the Committee on Privileges and Elections made no report on the subject, nor was the matter brought to a vote in the Senate.

The history of the case here given consists of a statement of the proceedings in the Senate relating to it as published in the Congressional Record, with a reference to the debate thereon as contained in the Congressional Record, and extracts from remarks by Mr. Chandler in the course of such debate.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE SENATE.

SATURDAY, March 4, 1893. Mr. Peffer presented the credentials of John Martin, recently elected a Senator from the State of Kansas for the term ending March 3, 1895. The credentials were read and ordered to be filed, as follows:

"STATE OF KANSAS, EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT.

"This is to certify that on the 25th day of January, in the year of our Lord 1893, John Martin was duly elected by the legislature of Kansas, a Senator to represent said State in the Senate of the United States for the unexpired term of six years, commencing the 4th day of March, A. D. 1889, and ending March 4, 1895, and to fill the vacancy in said term happening by the decease of the Hon. Preston B. Plumb. "Witness his excellency, our governor, and our seal hereunto affixed, at Topeka, this 25th day of January, in the year of our Lord 1893, and of the Independence of the United States the one hundred and seventeenth.

L. D. LEWELLING.

[ocr errors]

[SEAL.]

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

Mr. HOAR. The credentials of Mr. Martin seem to be in due form and to entitle him prima facie to be admitted to a seat in the Senate. If there be any question as to his title upon the merits, the Senate can deal with it afterwards. I ask that the oath be administered to Mr. Martin.

Mr. Martin was escorted to the Vice-President's desk by Mr. Peffer, and the oath prescribed by law having been administered to him, he took his seat in the Senate. (Cong. Rec., Vol. 25, p. 2.)

WEDNESDAY, April 12, 1893.

Mr. VANCE. I am directed by the Committee on Privileges and Elections to report a resolution, and to ask for its immediate consideration. The Secretary read the resolution, as follows:

"Resolved, That the Committee on Privileges and Elections, or any subcommittee thereof, be authorized to investigate the right of Mr. Joseph W. Ady, who claims a seat in this body as Senator from Kansas; and, if in their judgment it be necessary,

to employ a stenographer, send for persons and papers, to administer oaths, and to sit during the recess of the Senate."

The resolution was ordered to be referred to the Committee to Audit and Control the Contingent Expenses of the Senate. (Cong. Rec., Vol. 25, p. 133.)

THURSDAY, April 13, 1893.

Mr. Sherman presented a memorial of seventy-seven members of the Kansas legislature, relating to the election of a United States Senator from Kansas to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Senator Preston B. Plumb.

The memorial was ordered to be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections and to be printed as a document. (Cong. Rec., Vol. 25, p. 135.)

FRIDAY, April 14, 1893.

The Vice-President laid before the Senate the resolution introduced by Mr. Vance April 12, 1893, in regard to the investigation of the right of Mr. Joseph W. Ady to a seat in the Senate as a Senator from the State of Kansas.

The resolution was reported from the Committee to Audit and Control the Contingent Expenses of the Senate with an amendment, to add:

The expense thereof to be paid from the contingent fund of the Senate.

The amendment was agreed to and the resolution as amended was agreed to. (Cong. Rec., Vol. 25, p. 139.)

MONDAY, August 21, 1893.

Mr. Chandler submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections:

"Resolved, That there was no lawful election of a United States Senator from Kansas by the joint assembly which met on January 25, 1893; and that John Martin is not entitled to a seat as Senator from the State of Kansas."

(Cong. Rec., Vol. 25, p. 535.)

THURSDAY, Junuary 31, 1895.

Mr. Chandler offered the following resolution as a privileged resolution: "Whereas, at the time of the alleged election of John Martin as Senator from Kansas the legislature of the State had not been duly organized; and

[ocr errors]

'Whereas, at the joint convention which made such election no majority of the

legally elected members of the legislature voted for Mr. Martin: Therefore,

"Resolved, That there was no lawful election of a United States Senator from Kansas by the joint assembly which met on January 25, 1893, and that John Martin is not entitled to a seat as a Senator from the State of Kansas."

The Vice-President ruled that said resolution was not a privileged resolution under the circumstances connected with its presentation; and on appeal the decision of the chair was sustained by a vote of 40 yeas to 6 nays. (Cong. Rec., Vol. 27, pp. 1566, 1567.)

WEDNESDAY, February 6, 1895.

The Vice-President laid before the Senate the resolution offered by Mr. Chandler January 31, 1895; which resolution was read and the question of its status was discussed, and thereupon the resolution was withdrawn. Subsequently, and on the same day, Mr. Chandler offered the same resolution; which was read and ordered go over and be printed.

to

(Cong. Rec., Vol. 27, p. 1816.)

THURSDAY, February 28, 1895.

The resolution submittted by Mr. Chandler February 6, 1895, was read and debated, but no vote was taken thereon.

(Cong. Rec., Vol. 27, pp. 2912-2918, 2920, 2922-2925.)

[Extracts from remarks by Mr. Chandler in support of the resolution submitted by him that Mr. Martin was not entitled to a seat as a Senator from the State of Kansas. Found in the proceedings of February 28, 1895, in the Congressional Record, vol. 27, pp. 2916, 2917.]

[blocks in formation]

"It is impossible successfully to contend that this case has been fairly and justly dealt with by the Senate and its Committee on Privileges and Elections. The prolonged sickness and the death of Senator Vance may have been an excuse for some

delay, but on that very account extraordinary diligence should have been afterwards used to hear and determine the important question of the right of a Senator to a seat in this Chamber.

"That the refusal was decided upon the face of facts which, if they had been confronted, would have required the ejectment from his seat of the sitting member [Mr. Martin], it is the purpose of my additional remarks to show. The facts are not complicated.

"A Kansas legislature was chosen November 8, 1892-40 senators, 125 representatives, 63 being a majority in the house and 83 a majority of the whole 165.

"On Tuesday, January 10, 1893, the members assembled at Topeka. The senate was duly organized as one body without controversy; but two houses were organized, each claiming to be lawful.

"The Douglass house had 64 members holding certificates from the secretary of State. Three other members, holding certificates, afterwards appeared, making 67 members.

"The Dunsmore house had 58 members holding certificates and 10 persons without certificates. These 10 claimed the places of 10 certified members who were in the Douglass house, asserting that of the latter 4 were ineligible because they were postmasters when elected, and that the rest had not been legally elected.

"The senate recognized the Dunsmore house and refused to recognize the Douglass house, and so did the governor of the State.

"On February 25, 1893, the Kansas supreme court decided that the Douglass house was the lawful body, and on February 28 the members of the Dunsmore house joined the lawful body and the Dunsmore house ceased to exist, none of the 10 unlawful members of that house either being admitted or claiming seats in the lawful body at any time.

"On Tuesday, January 24, 1893, the senate voted for United States Senator, no person receiving a majority. The Douglass and Dunsmore houses each voted for United States Senator, Joseph W. Ady receiving a majority in the first and John Martin receiving a majority in the second body.

"On Wednesday, January 25, there was a joint assembly, Lieutenant-Governor Daniels presiding. The senate roll was called; 15 senators did not vote; 24 voted for John Martin and 1 for M. W. Cobun.

"The lieutenant-governor then directed B. C. Rich, clerk of the Dunsmore house, to call the roll. Fifty-six members of the Dunsmore house who had held certificates from the secretary of state voted-51 for John Martin, 3 for Cobun, 1 for Mr. Close, 1 for Mr. Snyder, 1 was absent, and 1 did not vote, making the 58.

"Ten members of the Dunsmore house who did not have certificates from the secretary of state voted-9 for Martin and 1 for Hanna.

"After the call thus made had been completed 2 members of the Douglass house, Wilson and Rosenthal, asked to vote; were allowed to do so and voted for Martin. "The vote then stood: Martin, 86; Cobun, 4; Close, 1; Snyder, 1; Hanna, 1, making 93.

[ocr errors]

'Before the result of the vote was announced Senator Lucien Baker arose, and in behalf of 15 senators and 65 representatives asked the right to vote. The lieutenantgovernor refused to allow them to vote, declared the result to be as above stated, and that John Martin was elected, and then he left the chair.

"Mr. HALE. Let me ask the Senator a question. I have been following the Senator's remarks. Does he mean to say that in the joint convention, where there were rival bodies, two houses of representatives, both present, that the presiding officer, after the roll call of one house had been completed, in order to get votes enough to make a quorum, allowed two members of the other house, which he had not recognized, to vote, and that then after doing that, when other members of that house requested the privilege of voting, he excluded them?

"Mr. CHANDLER. The Senator correctly understands the case. That is exactly what took place, as the language I have read very clearly indicates.

"Mr. HALE. Ís that an undisputed fact; and if so, what followed upon that? 'Mr. CHANDLER. I will show the Senator if he will listen a moment. The fact is undisputed that 24 senators voted for Martin; 1 for Cobun; that the roll was then called, and only members of the Dunsmore house voted. I again read:

After the roll call thus made had been completed two members of the Douglass house, Wilson and Rosenthal, asked to vote; were allowed to do so, and voted for Martin.

"The Senator is correct in the suggestion that it took these two votes to make in joint assembly up to that time 83, being a majority of the whole legislature. I proceed:

"The excluded senators and members continued in session, elected George L. Douglass presiding officer, and proceeded to cast their votes as follows

‘Joseph W. Ady, 77; present and not voting, 3.

« PreviousContinue »