Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1886-03-18
WRTY-NINTH CONGRESS-.
First Session,
SENATE.


time OF the actual count, that this constituted
serious danger and it was our duty to pro-
side against it. The bill faded to provide
lor settlement by Congress of a case in
~nich the opposing sets of returns were made
from any one State. In the present condi-
uoh OF pubic opinion and of political senti-
lneht IN Congress it was impossible to pro-
Vlde any arbiter for such a case. If one
mouse of Congress favored one such set of
returns, and the other another, there would
be no decision.
Webster had once said, said Mr. Hoar, that
II the senators of the United States failed to
assemble there was no earthly provision for
preventing the Republic from going to pieces.
II the state electors failed to send to the
oenate the necessary certificates there was no
way to compel them.
Mr.. George had not been able as a member
OF the committee on privileges to give his as
sent to this bill. There were some valuable
provisions in it, he said, but also some grave
omissions.
At the conclusion to Mr.. Georges remarks
IN opposition the bill was passed without di-
vision.
Several messages from the President were
iald before the Senate, one of them being un-
signed, but "recelved," said President Sher-
man ''in due and official form" The mes
sage, on suggestion of the chair and ON mo.
ton of Mr.. Cockrell, was returned to the
President for his signature.
Mr.. Hoar gave notice that he would to-
morrow move to take up the bankruptcy bill
as special order for Wednesday after next
The unfinished business being the Edmuuds
resolution, reported from the judiciary COM
mittee, it was laid before the Senate and Mr..
Dolph resumed the floor and continued his
remarks in favor of the majority report of
the committee.
Mr.. Dolph reviewed the history of the leg
islation of Congress on the subject of remov-
ais to show that the power didn't lie exclus-
lively with the President. He also quoted
from speeches of Webster, Calhoun and
others in support of his position. He also
cited decisions of the supreme cour: to show
that the power of removal was incident to the
power of appointment.
Mr.. Dolph argued that as the President
and Senate appointed the President and Sen
ate should remove.
Mr.. Coke followed. The underlying ques-
ton, he said, was whether the power of re-
moval was vested in the President alone or
in the President and Senate acting together.
sent of the Senate to be given to removals
from office.
Mr.. Coke contrasted the course of the Sen
ate when democratic with the course of the
present Senate, saying the democratic Sen
ate had not attempted to embarrass the re-
publican administration.
Mr.. Beck took the floor. Every ybody knew,
Mr.. Beck said, that Mr.. Duskin was nomi-
mated in March, 1881. and the Senate did not
see fit to confirm him. He was again ap-
pointed after an adjournment of the session
and nominated at the October term of the
same year. and the senator from Vermont,
(Edmunds) had not felt justified in even re-
porting him to the Senate for confirmation.
Mr.. Edmunds rose to the question of or
der. The senator from Kentucky, he said,
was violating the duty of a senator in respect
to the proceedings in executive session.
Mr. Beck denied this. Records and pub
lie papers, he said, showed these nominations
of Duskin, and it was because the senator
from Vermont knew he was unworthy, that
the papers were asked for, because he ex-
pected to entrap the department.
Mr. Edmunds insisted that the senator
from Kentucky was out of order and asked
the chair to decide the question.
The chair was OF the opinion that the sena
tor from Kentucky could see no distinction
and would, no doubt, observe the rules of
order.
Mr.. Beck said he would do so. He would
not speak Of anything that occurred in exec
utive session, but repeated his statement as
to what the record and public press would
show-that the senator from Vermont didn't
see fit to act on the Duskin nomination.
Mr.. Edmunds again insisted that Mr.. Beck
was out of order and asked the chair to en-
force the rules.
The chair stated that the senator from
Kentucky had the undoubted right to refer to
public facts.
MIR. Beck said that tomorrow he would
prove the public facts by the press of the
country and would also prove by the records
of the House of Representatives, which were
public, that Duskin was an utterly unfit man
to hold the place from which he was removed; {;
among other reasons because of his connec-
ton with Strobach Marshall, and that the
senator from Vermont himself knew the tact
and Mr.. Beck thought he would produce the
records from the attorney generals office, the
republican attorney general, Brewster, veri-
fying the fact stated by him (Beck.) He
hoped also in the executive session to get a
vote of the Senate to compel the senator
from Vermont to produce the evidence which
ba had before his own committee, to show
Duskins unfitness. He hoped to prove that
this effort to make an issue in regard TO Dus-
Kin WAS because the senator from Vermont
believed that the Duskin case was SO bad that
the democratic administration would be glad
to nrove how bad he was, and then the sem
ator would claim it as precedent i'll good
many cases.
Mr.. Edmunds said he would have to leave
entirely in silence what the senator from
Kentucky stated in regard to affairs lin ex-
acut;ve session. 81 feel bound in hor Or" he
sa:d ..not to make any allusion to any such
affairs. The ideas of senatorial honor, under
the rules, of the senator from Kentucky and
NV own are entirely different. Every sena-
,oy is sworn to the faithful performance of
his duty as a senator according to the regu-
lstiops of the Senate are made under the
constitution. If the senator from Kentucky
thinks it honorable to garble and misstate the
ex;stence af circumstances in closed doors l
have no remark to make on his sense OF
THAT is honorable and right. l cannot make
nv reference to what has taken place under
any circumstances when under the rules OF
the Senate and my oath the doors are closed,
therefore can make no reply to what she
senator from Kentucky has said on the SUD-
;ncr TO which he has alluded as in executive
ssession. Mr.. Edmunds made some inquiry
"a to Mr.. Beck's reference to the
renorts in the attorney generafs once
about Duskin and what they would show
Mr.. Beck said that his reference had been
to the committee on judiciary, of which the
senator from Vermont was chairman.
M. Edmunds reminded Mr.. Beck that he
I'D raferredxo papers in the Office Of Attor-