, 1890-04-11
Long Discussion of the Mon
tana Case in the Senate.
Edmunds and Eustis Have a
Personal Tilt.
CulIom Introduces a Bill in
Reference to Bigamy.

IN allowing the motion to a X up the
Chinese enumeration bill while the Mon
tana election case was undisposed Of,
either by being postponed, laid aside in
formally, or other action.
Hale-Then the chair rules the
Montana case is 10 proceed until com
pletedp
The president pro tem-Until COM
pleted.
Hale gave notice that as soon as the
Montana matter is disposed OF he would
ask the senate to take up aud complete
the Chinese enumeration bill.
The Montana ele1lion case was again
taken up and Call addressed the senate in
opposition to the report of the majority OF
the committee declaring the Republican
claimants, Sanders and Power, entitled
upon the merits Of the case to seats in the
senate from Montana.
At the conclusion OF Calls speech Hoar
spoke in support of the majority report.
Gray replied TO Hoar and then Teller
adore ssed the senate. He regarded the
question not from a partisan point of
view, but as a question OF law on the
proper determination of which depended
the orderly behavior of the senate in
the future. The question was whether
Montana should be allowed to select her
own representatives. The plain logic of
the arguments on the Democratic side OF
the chamber was that the right TO make
a selection was reserved to the senate
From that he dissented Such a doctrine
would lead to chaos and confusion.
"Wha.." he asked, would have been
the condition of tine senate if it had at
tempted TO say Tor many years past
whether the legislature of a state in
e~lecting senator's did or did not express
the will Of the people. A good many
senators on his side of the chamber Tin
GLIDING hiInselD thought certain states
bad not been represented in the senate
according TO the will of the people. He
was not insensible to the great wrong in
ficted on the people of those states, but
he had not been aole to find anywhere
under the constitution authority Tor the
senate to determine a question the state
had determined for itself. He did not
know what the theory OF the minority in
The Montana case was. if their report was
to be taken as it was, that Clark and
Maginnis were the legal representatives
FROM that state, but If their arguments
were good Tor anything at all II was that
nobody had been sent to the senate from
that state. He (Mr. Teller held that the
only thing to be determined was whether
the state OF Montana had spoken through
its legislature; and ii it had, there was no
authority for the senate To- revise thar
finding or TO set it aside.
What, he asked. was the controversy in
the case2 1t was wheth,r or nut the five
men who had set in the Iron H llI l~rgisla>
ture were entitled t. seats IN that body.
Ii 1t was not that. then there was no Gun
t~roversy at all Ii they were there right
fully, it was the rightlul house, and the
Joint assembly that elected the Repnbli.
can claimants was the rightful aud only
Joint assembly OF the state of Montana
But the senate had SAID in the Turpe
case that the legislature OF Indiana had
to decide for itself who were entitled to
seats in that body. Although there might
have been the grossest outrage committed
In admstting men to seats, the senate
held Tin hat easel it had
no right to Interfere. the riehting
of that wrong was not entrusted to the
senate of the United States, but to the
people Of Indiana. There was no legal
distinction between the cases. If the
senate should ever proceed to make itself
an investigator of elections a. over the
country there would be an end OF its use
f~ulness, and he submitted to the senators
OF the other side. situated as many of
them were, they could not afford to in
sist that such power should be exercised
by the senate. Whether the returning
board of Montana exercised its auth, rify
properly or not was not a question for the
legislature Of Montana.
Turpie held that in the Indiana case
the legislature itself passed iudicially
upon the contested seats, whereas the
legislature OF Montana had not passed
iudicially on the contested seats frJul
Silver Bow county. 1t it had done So
there would have been no dispute in the
case.
Sherman said he found all the facts
sufficiently stated in the minority report
to control his Judgment. He read three
paragraphs from the minority report and
said 1t WAS apparent theretrUm that as to
the hve representatives from Silver Bow
county neither set had certificates ac-
cording 10 form. The senate of Mon
tana was a tie and in the house there
were twenty-five republican members and
twenty four Democratic membels about
whose rights TO seats there was no ques
ton. There was. therefore, a Republican
majority on joint ballot; or, If the contest
over Silver Bow county had Come to be
decided by the house, there was a %luaior-
ly on the Republican side by which the
Republican contestants could have been
seated. THESE simple facts, he thought,
contained all the elements OF a lust dccis-
ion III the matter and showed the Repub-
lican claimants for seats in the seuat,
had a majority on Joint ballot and bad a
majority in the house without any refer
ence to the members from Silver Bow
county.
Edmunds and Eustis had n hr;of nor.
sonal tilt based on Edmunds' remarks
made a couple OF weeks ago. Eustis then
argued on the Montana matter.
Sherman asked whether twenty-is &c
Republican members OF the house did not
constitute a majority of chat body.
Eustis admitted that numerically wen
ty-ive were more than twenty four, but
added that twenty five did not ID AXE a
quorum and in the constitutional mean
ing twenty-five was not a larger number
than twenty-four. A quorum was twenty
eight. He went on to relate some matters
within his own experience of re
turning board measures 10 his own
state, and spoke of the legislative body of
which be had been a member having been
hcan Judge" from taking the oatl. OF Of
ice and of its having taken the oath in
defiance Of the injunction He also re-
ferred to the seating of William Pitt Kel-
ioRg lii the senate of the United.States,
and said with that act on the part of the
Republican party before his mind there
was nothing lett to excite surprise in re
gard to any contested election case.
The debate drifted again IN the direc-
ton Of the Turpie case ands Voorhee,