The Portland daily press., 1885-03-11
XLIXth Congress-lst Session.
SENATE.


| ciary committee.
The resolutions offered yesterday By Mr.
! Hoar that Henry w. Blair be sworn in as
| Senator to I'LL vacancy, was taken up.
| Mr.. Vest reafirmed the opinions expressed
| by him when tho Bell case was under dIscus-
sion, upon the power of the executive Of
| State to appoint Senator. He held that q
vacancy that came within the provision OF the
! Constitution relating to this sahj ject was not
| one occurring in the regular course OF eVepts
| by the expiration OF term, but was one re-
lated TO the personal circumstances OF the
| Senator by whose retirement vacancy was
made. He discussed the provisions of the Con-
| stltution and quoted precadents in support OF
| his position. Up TO 1878 not decision had
| been made which was not in accordance with
| his position. The Lanman case had been ad-
mitted during the discussion of the right Of
| Mr.. Bell to seat, by weighty authorities on
| the Republican side, to be q precedent Tor
| guidance in cases of the kind.
Mr.. Hoar did not think it would
be profitable to enter upon the wide
field Of discussion which this question
opened. The Senate would, he thought, rest its
action upon tho authority of the Bell prece-
dent. II legislative body could ever be
bound by precedent, the Senate had bound IL
self In that case, it was established after f1sl
discussion by great lawyers and the decision
was non-partiean. The great debaters who
differed from the majority put forth their best
efforts, rendering it certain that the decision
on the subject The people of New Hamp-
shire had governed themselves accordingly.
Sholld that decision be reversed, the
people OF New Hampshire and other States
would be compelled to change their practice
from time TO time according to the changing
msjorites or opinions Of the Senate. The ccn-
trolling provision of the Constitution was that
which declared that the several States should
have an equal right and authority in the
Senate. Such was not the case when there
q eipola n 0rdar that the States
might be equally represented, the vision
was made that where vacancies should happen
by resignation or otherwise during the vacancy
OF the Legislature, State executive should
have the power to appoint The provision re-
garding the filling Of executive offices by the
President during o recess of the Senate was
similar in character.
Mr.. Vest held that the two provisions were
rot analogous. The first related to vacancies
which should happen by resignation or other
wise. Ia the matter OF vacancies in executive
offices the words Shy resignation or otherwise"
were omitted.
Mr.. Hoar asked If vacancies could happen
except bv resignation or otherwise.
Mr.. Vest thought so. The trainers Of the
Constitution put in no word which did not
have meaning. He held that the words "by
resignation or otherwise meant by some cas-
ualty or accident, such aa death or resignation.
and that they were in antagonism 70 the ex-
piration by operation of law.
Mr., Hoar held that If Mr.. Vests interpreta-
tion was correct the phraseoiogy would have
been, "by resignation and not Otherwise -
Continuing his remarks he referred to several
precedents and hsld that in the Lanman case
there was q clear objection. The decision in
that case not to admit Lanman was for the
clear and indisputable reason that the COVER
nor had made the appointment before a va
cancy existed.
Mr.. Vest said that in proof that the Lanman
ease was construed by the Senate as he argued
there had hpen n laag than pioht daoiaiouc ri
the Senate since 1925, in accordance with prec-
edent and vacancies OK from one TO two years
had existed in accordance with it,
Mr. salisbury said he could not vote to seat
Mr.. Blair. Senators who had read tho pro-
ceedlngs IN the Lanman case in 1926 knew
that this very question now before the Senate
had been discussed on that occasion. "Hap-
pen" was held to be the governing word of the
constitutional provision, as it always implied
contingency. The Senator from Massachu-
setts seemed to think that the decision ia the
Lanman case hinged alone upon the right OF
governor to appoint to a vacancy for full
term before the vacancy existed. He read from
authorities to show that the elements of the
pending case were discussed in connection
with 5heL aman case. The Legislature of New
Hampshire at its session had neglected its duty
aud now the question was as to the governors
right TO I'LL vacancy where all the prece
denis and authorities to be oVerruled by a
single act OF the Senate at time when party
spirit ran high, when the Republicans were in
minority, when as be had reason TO know
votes were given in support OF Mr.. Bell for
exDedency or not because the law in the case
was in his favor.
Mr.. Jones OF Florida said he was glad this
was not in any sense an original question ia
this body end that a review of the Bell case
would give ample light for guidance. He had
voted for Beating Mr.. Bel but he
bat from conviction. So far as he
knew party feeling had not controlled in the
Bell case at all. When that case was pending
he had examined the constitution and had sat-
isfied himself that its strongest safeguards were
thrown around the right of state 10 its full
representation in the Senate. One OF these
Safeguards was a provision authorizing the
governor OF state to make temporary ap.
poinmsnts.
Mr.. Iugalls, interrupting, asked if a Legisla-
tnre meeting next alter the occurrence of
vacancy should fail to elect, then would the
Governor have power to appoint?
Mr.. Jones replied that in that case he did
not think the temporary appointee could hold
his seat with disregard to authorities and pre-
csdents. He held that the Senate was the
defendant and might exercise the same right
OF Judgment as was exercised by it's prede-
cessors. It was not bound as the Supreme
Court was bound, by precedent.
Mr.. Irgalls was not able to understand why
the last Legislature had not elected Senator.
Suppose there should be an invasion of the
State OF New Hampshire, what Legislature
wonld the Governor convoke?
MIR. Pike replied the Legislature chosen in
November, 1882.
Mr. Ineals said the inference was inevitable
that the Legislature chosen in 1882 was to-day
the Legislature Of New Hampshire, and the
only legislative body Competent to act. That
being the csse that Legislature had the right
at the last term to CHOOSE the successor OF Henry
w. Blair. Ihat Legislature did not exercise
IT'S power, and the question arose whether any
vacancy had occurred which the executive
could hll The Senate, he said, was now
settling tbs question for New Hampshire alone.
There were vacancies in Oregon and Illinois.
lie was not convinced that single appoint
ment by the Governor did not exhaust his
power. He regretted that the connection of
affairs IN New Hampshire exposed the Senate
to revival OF this controversy every two or
four years.
Mr.. Mcpherson assumed there was no State
without Legislature which could be convened
in emergencss. He did not see why Gov
ernor could not convene Legislature for the
pprpose Of electing Senator.
Mr.. Pike explained tina law of New Hamp-
shire bearing upon the election of Senators.
The Constitution of ths State provided tor the
election OF Legislature once in two years.
A question had arisen whether the body
elected next before the expiration of the seua-
torlal term had right 10 fill vacancy, or
whether that duty devolVed upon the legisia-
t0fS elected two and hGlf years before the
vacancy should exist. New Hampshire ought
not to be criticised. The State had sought the
opinion of the United States Senate and had
governed itself in accordance with il.
Mr.. Edmunds read from the journals of the
constitutional convention, to show the origin
and meaning OF the words "By resignation or
otherwise" The motive, he said, was distinct
ly stated by Mr., Madison, (Who proposed the
provision IL questioD) to be not that you are to
classify the kind OF vacancies, but it was put
il expressly for Ehe purpose of recognizing The
power OF senator to refuse to hold the Office
TO which he was appointed.
Mr.. Edmunds asked what would be the con-
dition OF affairs in the Supreme Court ii it ig-
nored all precedents and determined familiar
questions anew upon each recurrence. He ar
gued tha4 when matter had been settled de-
liberstely and without partisan concessions, it
was better TO follow the precedent so establish
ed, even though It might involve doubt.
Mr, Morgan thought the Constitution Sas
mandatory upon the Legislature of Ststo to
elect Senator. This question would recur as
often as vacancy occurred in the representa-
ton from New Hampshire. He held that nc
State was SO deficient in lis State organization
as to DO without Legislature which could be
convened at any time. The Constitution of
the United States provides that tha Legislature
chosen next preceding the occurrence of
vacancy should elect tue Senator. He thought
sound policy required reversal of the action
upon the Bell case.
The resolution was then agreed to-36 to 30
and the oath was then administered TO Mr..