Clearfield Republican. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1851-1937, 1880-03-31

re.examine, review and reverse their
decisions 7 Are not appeals, writs Of
error, motions for new trials and bills
Of review familiar TO us all /? The
Senate in considering such cases in the
first instance is not bound by the forms
of proceedings in the Courts. We
have no declarations, no complaints,
no bills in chancery, nor pleas, demur-
rers, answers and joinder of issue in
Judgment without the pleadings known
TO the Courts, may not the Senate
also proceed to review, re.examine and
reverse such judgments when good
cause is shown without restoring to
the process which in such cases are
known to the Courts ? If the Senate
is Court, then, II the facts in a given
case are such as would require the va.
cation Of Judgment If rendered by o
Court, surely the Senate would also be
authorized TO vacate such Judgment.
The exclusion by the Court of mater
ial testimony on the first hearing, the
discovery Of new and material evidence
OF frauds, forgeries, briberies and per-
juries in procuring the first Judgment
are all well.known grounds, on either
one Of which Courts, by some of the
methods of proceeding, will review and
reverse such judgments. All these
grounds are shown by the evidence
and the records of this Senate to exist
in extraordinary clearness, force and
repeated abundance in the case we are
now considering. Is the Senate by
being likened TO Court to be bound
by decisions which Court would
vigorously vacate and annul2
But the attempt to apply TO the
Senate the technical rule Of res ddjudi.
cdta as il obtains in the Courts is pal
pablc sophistry and not an argument
In the correct and forcible language
of Senator Thurman, before quoted,
ait confounds all distinctions and dis.
regards all the rules Of this body" i.
In cases like the one before us, your
committee do not hesitate TO adopt the
language employed by those eminent
constitutional lawyers, Mr. Coleman,
Of Vermont, and Mr.. Trumbull, OF llli-
nois, in the Fitch and Bright case, in
1859 They said
"The power of the Senate to Judge
of the election and qualification OF its
own members is unlimited and abiding
1t Is not exhausted in any particular
case by over adjudicating the same, as
tho power of re-examination and cor
rection of error and mistake, incident
to all judicial proceedings, remains
with the Senate in thisrespect, as well
as TO do Justice to itself as to the
States represented or TO the persons
claiming or holding seats. Such an
abiding power must exist to purge the
body from intruders, otherwise any
one might retain his seat who had
once wrongly procured decision CT
tho Senate in his favor by fraud or
falsehood, or even by papers forged or
fabricated"
In the light of the evidence now be.
fore the Senate the sitting member was
admitted by wrongly procured de-
cision Of the Senate in his favor by
means quite as criminal as those stated
in the last paragraph quoted, since the
means employed by him to secure his
pretended election included conspira-
cies, briberies and prejudices, often re-
peated, and the knowledge of which
was vigorously suppressed on the
former hearing. He was not chosen
by the legislature of Louisiana. He
was chosen by a body of men who
conspired with him TO defeat the will
of the State, and who excluded by
force the members elected by the peo
pie in order that the oonspirators
might be enabled TO accomplish their
wnrr