Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1886-07-26
THE CASE OF SENATOR HEARST ONCE
MORE.

Whoever sent Senator Stanford at Wash
ington dispatch saying that the Republi-
cans will not, or are pledged not to elect a
United States Senator at this session of the
Legislature, did not speak from the book,
had no authority to voice the opinion OF
the party and flew in the face of public
Judgment. Senator Stanford placed no
trust in the dispatch. Why it should
have been sent passes reason, except it was
intended to evoke from him, as a distin-
guished party man, approval that would
help the Hearst faction here out of the
Slough Of Despond. There is just a ques-
ton Of duty doing in this matter, and
nothing more. Senator Edmunds has put
the matter in the right light lie says it
is plain duty of the Legislature to elect.
If it fails to do so it evades duty. BY
such failure it cannot help "Uncle George"
particle, for the power of the Governor
to appoint him is derived from Federal
authority and is good only "until the
next meeting Of the Legislature" When
that body met the duty of filling the va
cancy was transferred to it. If now it fails
10 act the vacancy will be left existing"
and the Governor cannot reappoint Mr..
Hearst But the Senate may permit Mr.
Hearst to warm Senatorial cushion until
his successor appears. Such has been its
custom Of courtesy. But, let US ask, by
what authority of law does the Senate do
this thing? If there is vacancy, as all
the Senators agree, it can only be filed
lawfully. To permit one to act as a Sen
ator because no one appears to contest his
right, although it is clear that his chair is
In law vacant, is 4 fat violation Of law
and unbeeoming to the Senate. Suppose
the validity of some legislative
act should depend upon the vote
of "Senator" of that order,
does any believe that that Courts would
hold the " Act to be valid? While the
Senate is so positive-and rightly so-that
the Legislature of California must do its
duty and select Mr.. Hearsts successor be-
cause il is the law of the land, should not
that grave and diguifed body itself apply
the same salve and decline to recognize as
Senator gentleman clearly not a Sena-
tor? The appeal for sympathy has been
made in behalf of Mr.. Hearst. II is said
with good deal of lip-pouting that it is
rough and "wrong" and snap iudg-
ment" to fire ont Uncle George and put a
Republican in his place; that it is bit of
mean partisanship. Let US see. The PEG
pie elected Legislature that in turn
choose General Miller, Republican, TO
be Senator for six years. The peo-
pie thereby made their will known
as to the political character of
the man who would be Senator.
Death interviewed and removed Senator
Miller. In the meantime a Democratic
Governor IS chosen, and he selects Demo-
crat to fill the unexpired term of the Re
publican Senator Now that the Legisla-
ture Is in session, and mas Republican
majority on joint ballot, where is there
any injustice, any snap judgment, any lack
Of courtesy in choosing a man to ill out
the unexpired term who is in accord with
the political faith embraced by Senator
Miller Is not such action, on the con-
trary, simply giving vitality in practical
operation to the latest expressed will of
the people upon the Senatorial question?
The snap judgment, ii any, was that taken
by Governor Stoneman when he appointed
Mr.. Hearst. But Republicans did not
complain of that at the time, nor do they
now, "and Just the same" they do not ex-
pect Democrats to complain of them for
restoring the Republican succession in the
Senate,