Page images
PDF
EPUB

"If they did mean to provide for it, is there a man bold enough to justify his vote on this question by announcing that he believes in that case our fathers did not mean to have the Senate filled? They provided that ninety-nine one-hundredths of the American people could not for ninety-nine hundred or ninety-nine thousand years, if this nation should endure so long, under any conceivable circumstance or for any conceivable reason, have two Senators for forty-three States and the fortyfourth State have but one. The one constitutional impossibility, so far as the wit of man could devise, and the power of a national constitution could enact, was that when this Senate was to act on the important questions affecting the rights of the States and the people two voices should answer for each.

"Now, that is the whole of it; and when there is a vacancy by resignation or otherwise,' a word comprehending every possible or conceivable case, the governor, if the legislature has not done it, is to appoint. Upon the meaning of the word otherwise' and upon the truth of these two simple propositions this whole debate has, in fact, turned. There have been winding and turning and searching of precedents and splitting of hairs; but when any Senator objecting to the admission of Mr. Mantle is asked: Do you admit that the decision in the New Hampshire case was right? he is obliged to answer as the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Platt] answered, 'I voted for it because I thought it would be a hard case, but I have now concluded it was wrong.' This is the substance of what the Senator says.

"Why, Mr. President, the Senator from Connecticut and, I think, one other Senator sought to convict me of an inconsistency because when in the middle of the debate, the question not being before the Senate, when we were discussing something else (as he thinks, when we were discussing the New Hampshire case), Mr. Carpenter, of Wisconsin, asked me if I claimed or thought that if the legislature met and separated the governor could then appoint. It was such a case as every lawyer in this body is familiar with. Somebody comes up to you when your head is full of something else, in the street or in the town meeting, and says: 'Squire, how would it be, supposin'?' I never heard of the lawyer who admitted that the opinions he gave under such circumstances were of much value. Almost as soon as I took my seat after that speech, on reflection, I came to the conclusion that I had made an erroneous answer, and I have acted on another principle in the Senate ever since. "If my honorable thinks that I am to be held in law, or in morals, or in consistency, or in responsibility to public opinion by the answer which I gave to that shrewd question put by that shrewd gentleman at that time, what is his condition, who comes in here to take back four solemn votes of his own on cases before the Senate and in issue-the Bell case, the Blair case, the Marston case, and the Pasco case, two of them cast after the most deliberate and solemn debate-a debate participated in by the great constitutional lawyers of the country?

"Mr. President, if there were nothing else in this case but these four great and recent precedents, I should argue both to the understanding and the conscience of the members of this body to stand by them. No court, no legislative body, no tribunal can maintain the respect of the people long that does not maintain its own consistency and that does not regard its own solemn judgments.

"He and I struggled for half a winter to maintain that principle in the case of Mr. Kellogg, of Louisiana, against the gentlemen on the other side of the Chamber, angered, possessed with the feeling that Mr. Kellogg had been improperly admitted; and when the majority changed and the Democrats came in, they still held (and held fast, under the lead of the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Gordon], the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hampton], and the Senator from Delaware [Mr. Bayard], now in honorable service abroad, and the great jurist from Mississippi [Mr. Lamar], who recently went to his reward to the grief of all his countrymen North and South) to the doctrine of sustaining the deliberate judgments of the Senate.

"My honorable friend from Connecticut speculates about the possibility of a legislature being influenced by corrupt reasons and refusing to elect a member of this body in order that the governor may appoint some ambitious person who is in league with him, and he thinks there may be a very bad result from our adhering to the solemn judgments of the Senate on that account. I should like to know what possibility of corrupt influence bringing popular liberty and republican government itself into discredit can be greater than the influence which, if this disregard of our precedents is established as a policy will be brought to bear on the members of this body to seat or unseat men who have a rightful title to seats here according as they expect they will vote one way or the other on some exciting question pending.

"I think that the attitude of my honorable friend from Connecticut, who has voted four times for this doctrine and now seeks to reverse it (honest as every man who knows him knows everything he does and thinks is honest), is still an attitude more fraught with a graver public danger than any he has suggested as flowing from one or the other exposition of the Constitution in this matter. My honorable friend says

that, although he thinks the New Hampshire cases were wrong, still there is a distinction between those cases and the one before the Senate.

"Mr. PLATT. I have not said that I thought the New Hampshire cases were wrong. "Mr. HOAR. I asked the Senator whether he thought it was a sound constitutional decision, and he said, no.

"Mr. PLATT. I understood the Senator's question to be on the point as to whether, if the case was admitted to be decided on the question that a governor could appoint at the commencement of a term, I thought it was wrong.

Mr. HOAR. The Senator thought it was wrong.

"Mr. PLATT. I did not say that.

"Mr. HOAR. The Senator said he did not think it was right on any ground; but, if he thinks so, on what ground?

"Mr. PLATT. I do.

"Mr. HOAR. On what ground?

"Mr. PLATT. On the ground that the State of New Hampshire had not had an opportunity to make the election.

"Mr. HOAR. Now, just let us look at that a moment and see where the true principle comes in. The Senator says if a State legislature has tried its best to make an election, as in the case of Montana, where the legislature met and balloted at the time fixed, and balloted day after day and week after week, and failed because the members of that legislature could not find a man on whom a majority could conscientiously agree, an inability which to every just and honest man is absolute in the conduct of the affairs of life, he will keep the man out; but when the whole people of a State deliberately put it into their constitution that their legislature shall not meet at the proper time and shall not elect at the proper time, so that not only has there been no attempt on the part of the legislature to do its duty, but the people say that the legislature shall not try to do its constitutional and lawful duty, then in such case my honorable friend from Connecticut says of course he will let the man in. "The Constitution then, according to my honorable friend from Connecticut, is this: When the framers of the Constitution, Oliver Ellsworth, James Madison and their associates, said if there is a vacancy by resignation or otherwise,' they did not mean in any other way but in the same way as resignation, if any other same way could be conceived of; that they intended that in a certain easily to be foreseen condition there should be vacancies in this body, and then further they provided that if a State legislature tried its best to elect and could not, the governor should not have any power to appoint and the State should go unrepresentated, but if the people of a State put it into their constitution that the legislature should not even try to elect a Senator, then it is such a hard case that the man ought to be admitted.

"Mr. President, that is the whole of it. You may discuss and refine and bring into this matter the subtlety of dialetics and split hairs, if when the framers of the Constitution said, 'resignation or otherwise,' they meant resignation or any other conceivable case,' then this case belongs to Mr. Mantle. If they meant to narrow the provision to the case of a vacancy by resignation or something like it, to the case of the abandonment of his post for a good or evil reason by the Senator, and in the great field of other possibilities, and intended that the State should lose its equality and its sovereignty, and that it should not be represented here, then the case is not with Mr. Mantle.

"If the words, 'happen by resignation or otherwise,' include the case at the beginning of a term where the State has sent nobody here and it was impossible to send anybody here, then this case belongs to Mr. Mantle upon the precedents; but if it be sound doctrine that it is a hard case and the State shall be excused and the governor shall appoint when it does not try, and the people say the legislature shall not try to elect its Senators, then the case is not with Mr. Mantle upon our precedents. If the case be that upon precedent, upon principle, upon authority, the people of these three States have a right to have their constitutional voice uttered, then for one-other gentlemen will do as they please-I should feel myself degraded and man-sworn if I voted to keep them out because I do not like the votes they are expected to give."

WEDNESDAY, August 23, 1893.

Mr. Vance offered the following substitute for the resolution submitted by the committee:

"Resolved, That Hon. Lee Mantle is not entitled to a seat in this body as a Senator from the State of Montana."

The question of agreeing to the substitute offered by Mr. Vance being submitted to the Senate, the same was agreed to by the following vote:

Yeas-Messrs. Berry, Blackburn, Caffery, Coke, Cullom, Dixon, Faulkner, Gallin

ger, George, Gibson, Gray, Harris, Kyle, Lindsay, McMillan, McPherson, Manderson, Mills, Mitchell (Oregon), Mitchell (Wisconsin), Murphy, Palmer, Pasco, Peffer, Platt, Proctor, Ransom, Smith, Stockbridge, Vance, Vest, Vilas, Washburn, White (California), White (Louisiana)-35.

Nays-Messrs. Bate, Butler, Cameron, Carey, Daniel, Davis, Dubois, Frye, Hansbrough, Hawley, Higgins, Hill, Hoar, Hunton, Irby, Jones (Arkansas), Jones (Nevada), Lodge, Martin, Perkins, Power, Pugh, Roach, Shoup, Squire, Stewart, Teller, Turpie, Walthall, and Wolcott-30.

(Cong. Rec., vol. 25, pp. 688, 689.)

Mr. Manderson moved to reconsider the vote by which the substitute was agreed to. Mr. Vance moved to lay that motion on the table.

(Cong. Rec., vol. 25, p. 689.)

The motion to reconsider was laid before the Senate August 24, 1893 (Cong. Rec., vol. 25, pp. 782, 783), and August 28, 1893 (Ibid., pp. 989, 994, 995).

The motion to reconsider the vote by which the substitute offered by Mr. Vance was agreed to, was laid on the table by the following vote:

Yeas-Messrs. Berry, Caffery, Call, Camden, Coke, Cullom, Dixon, Faulkner, Gallinger, George, Gray, Lindsay, McMillan, McPherson, Mills, Mitchell (Wisconsin), Murphy, Palmer, Pasco, Platt, Proctor, Ransom, Smith, Stockbridge, Vance, Vest, Vilas, Voorhees, Washburn, White (California), and White (Louisiana)—31.

Nays-Messrs. Bate, Butler, Cameron, Davis, Dubois, Frye, Hansbrough, Hawley, Hill, Hunton, Irby, Jones (Arkansas), Jones (Nevada), Martin, Morgan, Peffer, Perkins, Pettigrew, Power, Pugh, Roach, Sherman, Shoup, Squire, Stewart, Teller, Walthall, and Wolcott-28.

(Cong. Rec., vol. 25, p. 995.)

The resolution as amended, as follows

"Resolved, That Hon. Lee Mantle is not entitled to a seat in this body as a Senator from the State of Montana”

was then adopted by the following vote:

Yeas-Messrs. Aldrich, Berry, Caffery, Call, Camden, Coke, Cullom, Dixon, Faulkner, Gallinger, George, Gray, Lindsay, McMillan, McPherson, Mills, Mitchell (Wisconsin), Murphy, Palmer, Pasco, Platt, Proctor, Ransom, Smith, Stockbridge, Vance, Vest, Vilas, Voorhees, Washburn, White (California), and White (Louisiana)-32.

Nays-Messrs. Bate, Butler, Cameron, Davis, Dubois, Frye, Hansbrough, Hawley, Higgins, Hill, Hunter, Irby, Jones (Arkansas), Jones (Nevada), Martin, Morgan, Peffer, Perkins, Pettigrew, Power, Pugh, Roach, Sherman, Shoup, Squire, Stewart, Teller, Walthall, and Wolcott-29.

(Cong. Rec., vol. 25, pp. 995, 996.)

WEDNESDAY, August 30, 1893.

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

"Resolved, That there be allowed out of the contingent fund of the Senate, to Lee Mantle, the sum of $5,000 in full compensation for all his time and expense in prosecuting his claim to a seat in the Senate as a Senator from the State of Montana." (Cong. Rec., vol. 25, p. 1048.)

WEDNESDAY, September 6, 1893.

Mr. Vance, from the Committee on Privileges and Elections, submitted the following report:

"The Committee on Privileges and Elections, to whom was referred a resolution providing for compensation for Lee Mantle for his time and expense in prosecuting his claim to a seat in the United States Senate from Montana, report that he be allowed $2,500."

Which report was referred to the Committee to Audit and Control the Contingent Expenses of the Senate.

(Cong. Rec., vol. 25, p. 1238.)

THURSDAY, September 7, 1893.

The foregoing resolution, providing for compensation to Lee Mantle for his time and expense in prosecuting his claim to a seat in the Senate of the United States as a Senator from the State of Montana, was favorably reported by the Committee to Audit and Control the Contingent Expenses of the Senate, and laid over for the day. (Cong. Rec., vol. 25, pp. 1300, 1301.)

TUESDAY, September 19, 1893. On motion of Mr. Vance, the resolution allowing compensation to Lee Mantle was taken up and read, as follows:

66

Resolved, That there be allowed out of the contingent fund of the Senate to Lee Mantle the sum of $5,000 in full compensation for all his time and expense in prosecuting his claim to a seat in the Senate as a Senator from the State of Montana."

The resolution was reported from the Committee on Privileges and Elections with an amendment in line 2, before the word "dollars," to strike out "five thousand" and insert "two thousand five hundred."

The amendment was agreed to.

The resolution as amended was agreed to.

(Cong. Rec., vol. 25, p. 1569.)

[Special session of the Senate March 4, 1893, and first session Fifty-third Congress.] ASAHEL C. BECKWITH, of Wyoming.

The term of Francis E. Warren, Senator from the State of Wyoming, expired on the 3d day of March, 1893. The legislature of said State which was in session next preceding the expiration of the term of said Francis E. Warren adjourned without an election. March 9, 1893, the governor of the State of Wyoming appointed Asahel C. Beckwith to fill the vacancy caused by the expiration of the term of Mr. Warren. On the 15th day of March, 1893, the credentials of Mr. Beckwith were presented and ordered to lie on the table pending the appointment of a Committee on Privileges and Elections, and were afterwards referred to such committee. March 27, 1893, the Committee on Privileges and Elections made a report affirming the right of Mr. Beckwith to a seat in the Senate as a Senator from the State of Wyoming. The report was not adopted, the question in the case being substantially the same as in the case of Lee Mantle, supra, and as in the case of John B. Allen, post. Under date of July 11, 1893, Mr. Beckwith sent to the Senate a communication stating that he had resigned his appointment as Senator from the State of Wyoming.

The history of the case here given consists of a statement of the proceedings in the Senate, as published in the Congressional Record, the report of the Committee on Privileges and Elections, and the communication from Mr. Beckwith stating the fact of his resignation.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE SENATE.

WEDNESDAY, March 15, 1893.

Mr. Vance presented the credentials of Hon. Asahel C. Beckwith, appointed a Senator from the State of Wyoming. He asked that the credentials be read and referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections when appointed, and that meanwhile they lie on the table.

The credentials were read and ordered to lie on the table, as follows:

"STATE OF WYOMING, EXECUTIVE Department. "To all persons to whom these presents shall come, greeting:

"Know ye, that the executive of said State hereby appoints Asahel C. Beckwith, a duly qualified citizen of said State and an inhabitant thereof, a Senator from the said State of Wyoming, to fill the vacancy happening in the Senate of the United States by the expiration of the term of Francis E. Warren on the 3d day of March, in the year of our Lord 1893, during the recess of the legislature of said State, and by the nonelection of said Francis E. Warren's successor.

"To have and to hold the said office of Senator of the United States until the next meeting of the legislature of said State.

"In testimony whereof I have caused these letters to be made patent and the great seal of the State to be hereunto affixed.

"Given under my hand at the city of Cheyenne on the 9th day of March, A. D. 1893.

"By the governor:

"AMOS W. BARBER, Secretary of State."

(Cong Rec., vol. 25, p. 15.)

"JOHN E. OSBORNE, Governor.

MONDAY, March 27, 1893.

Mr. Hoar, from the Committee on Privileges and Elections, to whom was referred the claim of Asahel C. Beckwith to be admitted to a seat in the Senate from the State of Wyoming, submitted a report, accompanied by a resolution, which resolution was read, as follows:

"Resolved, That Asahel C. Beckwith is entitled to be admitted to a seat as a Senator from the State of Wyoming."

On motion of Mr. Hoar the report and the accompanying resolution were ordered to lie on the table.

(Cong. Rec., vol. 25, p. 33.)

« PreviousContinue »