[Fifty-fourth Congress-second session, and Fifty-fifth Congress-first session.] JOHN E. ADDICKS v. RICHARD R. KENNEY, of Delaware.

The term of Anthony Higgins as Senator from the State of Delaware expired March 3, 1895. After the decision by the Senate that Henry A. Du Pont was not elected to the office of United States Senator by the legislature of the State of Delaware, and on the 21st day of January, 1897, a paper was presented in the Senate certifying to the election of John Edward Addicks as Senator from the State of Delaware on the 20th day of January, 1897, for the term beginning March 4, 1895. These credentials purported to be signed by the speaker of the senate of the State of Delaware, the speaker of the house of representatives of the State of Delaware, and the clerk of the senate and the clerk of the house of representatives of the State of Delaware. February 5, 1897, the credentials of Richard R. Kenney were presented in the Senate duly signed by the governor of the State of Delaware and certifying to the election of said Richard R. Kenney on the 19th day of January, 1897, as a Senator from said State for the term ending March 3, 1901. These credentials being in due form, Mr. Kenney was admitted to a seat in the Senate.

March 19, 1897, the petition of John Edward Addicks was presented in the Senate, claiming that he, said John Edward Addicks, was elected to the Senate of the United States on the 20th day of January, 1897, by the legislature of the State of Delaware, and alleging certain facts in relation to the election of Richard R. Kenney from which the petitioner asserted that Mr. Kenney was not legally elected to that office. This petition was referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections, but no report concerning the matter was made by the committee nor was any further action taken by the Senate in reference to such petition.

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 the remarks of Mr. Hoar on the occasion of the presenting of the credentials of Mr. Kenney.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE SENATE.

THURSDAY, January 21, 1897.

Mr. Chandler presented the following paper, which was referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections:

"DELAWARE, 88:

"Be it known that the legislature of the State of Delaware did, on the 20th day of January, in the year of our Lord 1897, at an election in due manner held according to the form of the act of the general assembly of said State in such case made and provided, choose John Edward Addicks to be a Senator from said State in the Senate of the United States for the constitutional term from the 3d day of March, in the year of our Lord 1895.

"Given under our hands in obedience to the said act of the general assembly the day and year aforesaid.

(Cong. Rec., vol. 29, p. 1004.)

"ROBERT J. HANBY,

"Speaker of the Senate.

"THOMAS C. MOORE,

"Speaker of the House of Representatives.

"GEO. W. ROGERS,

"Clerk of the Senate.

"CHAS. R. HASTINGS,

"Clerk of the House of Representatives.

FRIDAY, February 5, 1897.

Mr. Gray presented the credentials of Richard W. Kenney as a Senator from the State of Delaware. The credentials were read, as follows:

"STATE OF DELAWARE, EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT.

"To the President of the Senate of the United States:

"This is to certify that on the 19th day of January, in the year of our Lord 1897, Richard R. Kenney was duly elected by the legislature of Delaware a Senator to represent said State in the Senate of the United States, to fill a vacancy existing in the representation of said State for the term ending the 3d day of March, A. D. 1901.

"Witness his excellency, our governor, Ebe W. Tunnell, and our seal hereunto affixed, at Dover, this 21st day of January, in the year of our Lord 1897, and of the independence of the United States of America the one hundred and twenty-first. "EBE W. TUNNELL.

"By the governor:

"WM. H. BRYCE, Secretary of State."

Mr. Kenney being present, and the oath prescribed by law having been administered to him, he took his seat in the Senate.

(Cong. Rec., vol. 29, pp. 1559, 1560.)

[Remarks of Mr. Hoar on the occasion of the presenting of the credentials of Mr. Kenney as a Senator from the State of Delaware. Found in the proceedings of February 5, 1897, in the Congressional Record, vol. 29, pp. 1559, 1560.]

"Mr. President, I desire to make a brief statement also before the Senate admits this gentleman to a seat.

"At the last session of the Senate the Senate determined by a majority of 1, I think (I was not present when the final vote took place, being absent in consequence of illness), that Mr. Henry A. Du Pont was not entitled to a seat in the Senate. The result necessarily involved in that determination was the decision of the Senate that a vacancy existed from the State of Delaware.

"I suppose it is unnecessary to say that I dissented from the opinion on which that vote of the Senate was based. The question was whether the acting governor, formerly speaker of the senate and formerly a member of the senate, was disqualified from voting under the Delaware constitution by his accepting and entering upon the then vacant office of governor. I thought then and think now that it was just such an act of usurped authority when he undertook to vote as it would have been if President Johnson or President Arthur had come back to the Senate here and undertaken to preside as Vice-President and to give a casting vote on some important question. I never have changed that opinion and I have no great doubt about it; but the Senate adjudged otherwise.

"The Senate is made by the Constitution the judge of the election and qualification of its members, and its judgment is just as binding in law, in all constitutional vigor and potency, when it is rendered by 1 majority as when it is unanimous. I remember very well what I think was one of the most admirable public utterances of the late James G. Blaine. The year after his own party had nearly lost the State government by an attempted fraud and usurpation on the part of their antagonists there was a contested election, that party then being in power. It was very close, and Mr. Blaine declared that 1 majority for Plaisted was as good as a thousand in entitling Mr. Blaine's opponent, Governor Plaisted, to the seat.

"Now, what was the effect of that judgment of the Senate? It seems to me that it was the same as the judgment of a court would have been fixing the rights of parties. It may be undoubtedly reviewed for newly discovered evidence; it may undoubtedly be vacated for an error in the record, as if we should discover that one or two Senators who were recorded as voting one way in fact voted another way. I suppose it could be vacated if it should turn out, to use an illustration that some one else made in my hearing recently, that that governor, when it was supposed he voted in the Delaware legislature, was falsely impersonated by some one else and was not there at all. But, although parliamentary proceedings differ in form from those of courts, the great rule on which the safety of all human property and transactions depend, established in courts of justice, ought in substance to govern us here.

"There has been an application on the part of Mr. Du Pont-whom I respect personally, whom I eagerly desire should have a seat in this body, and who I think ought to have had one on the merits of his case-to reopen that case. No newly discovered evidence is suggested; no fraud or mistake is suggested. The reopening of the case would merely be a reconsideration of a question of constitutional law which this great constitutional court has decided once. That is all he asks and that is all he would obtain if his prayer for a reopening of the case were granted.

"That petition was referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections, and after a very able and interesting argument in favor of Mr. Du Pont by Mr. Garland, late Attorney-General-and it is not necessary to say that any argument that gentleman makes will be able and interesting-the committee unanimously decided this morning that there had been an adjudication by the Senate and that nothing further remained to be done. It was unanimously decided with the exception of one member, who was not prepared to determine what was his duty at the particular time.

"Mr. President, I propose to act upon that doctrine. I think it is very important for constitutional government, very important to the dignity and authority of the Senate, very important for the peace of the country that we should stand by these principles.

"It is a very unpleasant thing to me that Mr. Du Pont is not to take his seat, and that some one else is to take it. But it would be a very bad thing for every citizen of this country unless the Senate of the United States could act and could be known to act upon great questions where right and righteousness are involved in pursuance of a law other and higher than its own desire.

"If it be true that Mr. Du Pont was not legally elected, or if it be true that that question has been settled by a judgment of the Senate, it follows that there is a vacancy, and that there was a vacancy at the time of the alleged election of Mr. Kenney, in the office of Senator from the State of Delaware; and there being a vacancy under the Constitution and statute of the United States, the credential in due form, signed by the executive of that State, gives the gentleman who now applies for the seat a prima facie title to the seat, subject, as has been suggested by my honorable friend from New Hampshire, to reexamination on the merits hereafter, if that reexamination shall be desired. . I therefore assent to the request of the Senator from Delaware that the oath be administered."

FRIDAY, March 19, 1897.

Mr. BURROWS. I present the petition of John Edward Addicks, a citizen of the State of Delaware, setting forth that on the 20th day of January, 1897, by a majority of the duly elected and qualified members of the senate and house of representatives of the State of Delaware, he was duly elected a United States Senator to fill the vacancy in the United States Senate occasioned by the expiration of the term of Anthony Higgins, and that he was denied the usual and formal certificate of election to which he was entitled. He further sets forth that the Hon. R. R. Kenney, now holding a seat in the United States Senate, was not duly and legally elected to fill the vacancy and is not legally entitled to his seat; that a majority of the citizens who met and assumed to act as the legislature of said State and went through the form of electing Mr. Kenney were never elected, but usurped the office of members of the legislature. The petitioner further contests the right of said Kenney to occupy a seat in the United States Senate, and affirms that Mr. Kenney was not legally elected thereto.

The petition further states that the three counties in the State of Delaware, which comprise its entire territory, elected at the last election seven members of the legislature from each of the counties, and that a canvass of the ballots since the election shows that in two counties-the county of Kent and the county of Sussex-the Republican candidates, seven from each county, were elected, or fourteen members of the lower house, and that, in substance, the members elected, with those holding over, constituted a majority of the legislature in both houses. The petitioner prays that the matter may be investigated and his right to a seat in the Senate passed upon by the Senate. I move that the petitition be printed and that it be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections.

Mr. GRAY. * * * I wish to state that as a matter of fact there has been no canvass, in the legal or official sense of that term, of the voters of those two counties since the election.

The memorial was ordered to be printed as a document and to be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections. (Cong. Rec., vol. 30, p. 66.)

THURSDAY, February 21, 1901.

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

66

'Resolved, That there be paid out of the contingent fund of the Senate to Richard R. Kenney, a Senator from the State of Delaware, the sum of $500 in reimbursement of expenses necessarily incurred by him in defense of his title to a seat." (Cong. Rec., vol. 34, p. 2726.)

FRIDAY, February 22, 1901.

Mr. Pettus, from the Committee on Privileges and Elections, reported the following resolution, which was referred to the Committee to Audit and Control the Contingent Expenses of the Senate:

Resolved, That there should be paid out of the contingent fund of the Senate to Senator Richard R. Kenney, of Delaware, the sum of $488, the amount expended by him in defending his right to a seat in the Senate." (Cong. Rec., vol. 34, p. 2802.)

THURSDAY, February 28, 1901.

Mr. Jones, of Nevada, from the Committee to Audit and Control the Contingent Expenses of the Senate, to whom was referred the resolution reported by Mr. Pettus from the Committee on Privileges and Elections on the 22d instant, reported it without amendment, and it was considered by unanimous consent and agreed to. (Cong. Rec., vol. 34, p. 3189.)

[Fifty-fifth Congress, second and third sessions, and Fifty-sixth Congress, first session.]

MARCUS A. HANNA,

Senator from Ohio.

Marcus A. Hanna was chosen by the legislature of the State of Ohio a Senator from that State the remaining portion of the term ending March 3, 1899, in place of John Sherman, who resigned t accept the office of Secretary of State of the United States. Mr. Hanna appeared January 17, 189, and took his seat in the Senate without objection. Subsequently, and on the 28th day of May, 1898, a tified copy of the report of the committee appointed by the senate of the State of Ohio to investigate charges of bribery in the election of Mr. Hanna to the Senate of the United States was filed and referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections. On the 28th day of February, 1899, the c mittee submitted a report asking to be discharged from further consideration of the report of the State senate of Ohio. A minority of the committee submitted a minority report recommendi further inquiry and investigation. One member of the committee did not join in either the major or the minority report, but submitted a separate report for himself. No further action was taken by the Senate in the case, but on the 5th day of June, 1900, the matter was referred to by Mr. Pettig in debate, and by request of Mr. Foraker the entire report of the Committee on Privileges and E tions in the case was inserted in the Record.

The history of the case here given consists of a statement of the proceedings in the Senate in the case, as published in the Congressional Record, the report of the Committee on Privileges and E tions, the report of the minority of the committee, and the separate report of Mr. Allen, a member the committee, and also a reference to the proceedings in the Senate during which the entire report of the committee was ordered to be printed in the Record.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE SENATE.

MONDAY, January 17, 1898. Mr. Foraker presented the credentials of Marcus Alonzo Hanna, chosen by the legislature of the State of Ohio a Senator from that State for the remaining portion of the term ending March 3, 1899. The credentials were read and ordered to be filed. The oath prescribed by law having been administered to Mr. Hanna, he took

his seat in the Senate.

(Cong. Rec., vol. 31, pp. 665, 666.)

SATURDAY, May 28, 1898.

The VICE-PRESIDENT. The Chair lays before the Senate for reference a commun cation from the general assembly of Ohio, which will be read. The Secretary read as follows:

"GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF OHIO,
"OFFICE CLERK OF THE SENATE,
"Columbus, May 26, 1898.

"MY DEAR SIR: I have this day forwarded to you by the United States Express Company a certified copy of the report of the committee appointed by the senate Ohio, pursuant to senate resolution No. 21, to investigate the charges of bribery the election of Hon. Marcus A. Hanna to the Senate of the United States, together with the testimony taken therein, which was ordered to be sent to you by the Oh senate. Kindly acknowledge receipt of the same.

"I have the honor to be, very truly yours,

"Hon. GARRET A. HOBART,

"United States Senate, Washington, D. C."

"D. O. CASTLE, Chief Clerk of the Senate.

The communication, with the accompanying papers, was referred to the Committe on Privileges and Elections.

(Cong. Rec., vol. 31, p. 5317.)

TUESDAY, February 28, 189. Mr. Chandler, from the Committee on Privileges and Elections, to whom referred a certified copy of the report of the committee appointed by the senate of the

State of Ohio, pursuant to senate resolution No. 21, to investigate the charges of bribery in the election of Hon. Marcus A. Hanna to the Senate of the United States, submitted a written report, which was ordered to be printed and to lie on the table. Mr. Turley submitted a minority report, which was also ordered to be printed and to lie on the table.

Mr. Allen submitted a report for himself in relation to which the same order was made.

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE.

[The committee consisted of Messrs. Chandler (chairman), Hoar, Burrows, Pritchard, Spooner, Faulkner, Caffery, Allen, and Pettus.]

ELECTION OF HON. M. A. HANNA.

FEBRUARY 28, 1899.-Ordered to lie on the table and be printed.

Mr. Chandler, from the Committee on Privileges and Elections, submitted the following report on the charges of bribery in the election of Hon. M. A. Hanna to the Senate of the United States:

The Committee on Privileges and Elections, to which was referred the certified copy of the report of the committee appointed by the senate of Ohio to investigate the charges of bribery in the election of Hon. Marcus A. Hanna to the Senate of the United States, having considered the same, report back to the Senate said certified copy, and further report as follows:

This certified copy of the report of the senate of Ohio, being a typewritten document, was presented to the United States Senate by the Vice-President on May 28, 1898, having been received by him through the mails, and was referred to the Čommittee on Privileges and Elections on motion of the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Teller), but no order for printing was made. It has, however, been put in type for the use of the committee. The contents of the certified copy are the "Report of the committee appointed by the senate of Ohio," including the testimony, of which 500 copies were printed by the Ohio senate, and the report further ordered to be printed in the appendix of the State senate journal. The closing paragraph of the report, signed by the chairman and three members, recommends its adoption by the State senate and that a copy thereof, with the testimony, "be transmitted to the President of the Senate of the United States, of which Senator Hanna is a member, for such action as it may deem advisable." The clerk of the State senate, in certifying on May 26, 1898, that the papers transmitted were a true and correct copy of the report of the committee, adds as to the report the words "and adopted by the Ohio senate." From the above statement it will be seen that no direct remonstrance, memorial, or protest setting out that Mr. Hanna was not elected Senator or that he ought to be expelled, coming from parties asserting readiness to prosecute their charges, has been presented to the Senate. Nor has the reception on May 28, 1898, of the certified copy of the State senate report been followed up by any appearance before this committee of any prosecuting parties or by the submission to the committee of any additional papers from any source. Nevertheless, the committee have given an examination to the report of the Ohio State senate committee, the points of the same, concisely stated, being as follows:

The specific charge is what the committee call "four main facts" stated in language as follows:

"The evidence taken by your committee, in its judgment, proves four main facts: "1. That on or about January 9, 1898, an attempt was made to bribe John C. Otis, a member of the house of representatives of the present general assembly of the State of Ohio, to vote for Marcus A. Hanna for United States Senator.

"2. That Henry H. Boyce was the principal offender in the commission of that crime.

"3. That Maj. E. G. Rathbone and Maj. Charles F. Dick were agents of Marcu. A. Hanna, and procured, aided, and abetted Henry H. Boyce to commit that crimes "4. That H. H. Hollenbeck aided said Henry H. Boyce in committing that crime." Although there is no evidence that Mr. Hanna had knowledge of the alleged attempt to bribe Mr. Otis, the State senate committee argue that the proven relations of the above parties to Mr. Hanna are persuasive to the conclusion that he knew and sanctioned what they did.

The only other point made by the State senate committee is that Hollenbeck and Boyce evaded the jurisdiction of the committee and that Messrs. Rathbone and