Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1888-01-28
SATURDAY JANUARY %, 1888.
Cnntested-Electlon Gases.

our neighbours doubts First, let us
quote the constitutional provision which
ne relies upon to sustain his contention.
Ii is rs follows:
1.-THE manner of conducting and max
ing returns OF elections, OF determining
contested elections, and OF filling vacan-
cies in Office in cases not specially pro-
vided for 10y the Constitution, shall be
prescribed by law
Here it is asserted by necessary lmph-
cation that the Constitution does Itself
provide how contested elections IN some
cases shall be decided. Now, what are
these cases? One is the case Of a con-
. tested electio for Governor. The other
is the case of contested elections Tor
members of the Legislature. There are
no other cases provided for in the Con-
stitntion: and therefore these must ne
cessarily be the cases referred to by that
instrument as having been provided for
Next, chqt does the Constitution pro-
vide? Well, as to the governorship it
provides:
Contested elections for Governor
shall be decided by n like vote a joint
vote of the two houses of the General
Assembly and the mode Of proceeding
in such cases shall be prescribed 10y law.
Recollect that there are only two cases
in which the Constitution prescribes the
manner of determining contested cleo
tons. In the case of the Governor 1t
provides that contest shall be decided
by vote of the Legislature, but adds
that the mode of proceeding "shall be
prescribed 10y law" Clearly, then, III
the case of contested election for
Governor the provision just above
quoted is supplemented by express
authority granted TO the General
Assembly to legislate on the subject. So
far as the Office of Governor is concerned
Article ", section ., and article ",
section %, are in thorough accord. The
article providing for a Governor pro-
vides how an election for Governor shall
be contested, but adds that the Leglsla-
ture shall prescribe the mode of pro-
ceeding.
How as to the Senate In this case,
too, the arti .'e providing for a Legisla-
ture provides how contested elections
for that body shall be decided-each
house shall Judge for itself--but stops
there. 1t does not add, as in the case
of Governor, that the mode of proceeding
shall be prescribed by law. Oh, no,
Each house shall Judge of the cleo
ton, qualifications, and returns OF It's
members" Immediately before this
provision is a sentence in the same sec
ton providing that vacancies in the Gen
eral Assembly may be filed "under such
regulations as may be prescribed by
law" But neither in this section nor
elsewhere does the Constitution grant
any power to the Legislature TO make
laws on the subject Of contested elections
for the General Assembly.
But the Wig raises a new point
namely, that contestants are not men,
bers of the Legislature within the mean
ing of the Constitution, and therefore
that section Z of Article V. does not APP
ply to them. II would be sufficient
answer TO this point to say thai if the
Legislature has no power to judge in the
case Of contestants there can be no con
testants But better answer is that the
question of membership is the very ques-
ton that is be decided, MIR. ELLIS may
be 1--WE don't say lie Isl q member wrong
fully kept out of his seat. Can't the
Senate Judge as TO his election ? Ger
tainly the constitutional provision is
in effect that each house Of the General
Assembly shall Judge as to whether
JONES or BRowN or nobody is elected.
Whoever is elected is the member if he
is duly qualified, for each house will de-
eide for itself as to whether he is proper
" "retlrRed 1t is not within the
power OF the Legislature to judge of the
returns OF the members of either house.
each house shall Judge for itself.
Therefore an act OF Assembly is uncon-
stitutional or not binding which pre-
scribes how a question as to the genuine
mess or correctness Of returns is to be de-
cided. This question cannot constitu-
tionally come up outside of teach
house"
The Federal statute provides that it
shall be the duty Of the Governor Of each
State to certify the election of United
States senator's. But the Governor Of
West Virginia refused TO do this in the
case OF Mr.. FAULKNER. He went to
Washington with an informal and irregu
Jar instead OF formal and regular certi-
fcate. Mr. Lucas went with formal
and regular certificate that he had been
appointed senator by the Governor. The
Senate judged as between thecontestants.
II seated Mr.. FAULKNER on "a return
that suited the Senate. The Federal
statute went for nothing.
Finally, in the case before as HousroS
or ELLIS was elected. Nobody denies
that If ELLIS was elected, he is the
rightful member. The Senate, there
fore, can judge as TO whether he was
elected or not. II HoUsros was elected,
the same il true as to him. Surely,
then, the Senate can judge as TO both OF
them--the member and the non-member.
But the Wings point covers too much
ground for il II Is a good one, the Sen
ate would have had no better right to
Judge Of ELLIs's ease ii he had complied
with the statutes in question than II has