Los Angeles herald., 1890-04-11
The Montana Case Still on
the Boards.
TO Have Full Right of Way
Until Completed.
The Merits of the Case Discussed
Pro and Con.
The Chinese Bill to be Pushed to a
Conclusion Next-Smuggled Chinese
Ordered Returned.
Associated Press Dispatches. |

WASHINGTON, April lO.-ln the senate
today, among the bills reported from
committees and placed on the calendar
were the following: Senate bill appro-
priating 81, ,34S, 900 for the improvement
of the Columbia river, Oregon, the ex-
penditures not to exceed 100000 in one
year; House bill to aid vessels disabled
in waters coterminous to the United
States and Canada. Senate bill to re-
vive the grade of Lieutenant-General Of
the army.
The president pro tenn Qngalls) re-
marked that he was in error yesterday
in allowing the motion to take up the
Chinese Enumeration bill, while the
Montana election case was undisposed
of, either by being postponed, laid aside
informally or by other action.
Hale-Then the chair rules that the
Montana case is to proceed until COM
pleted.
The president pro tem-Until COM
pleted.
Hale gave notice that as soon as the
Montana matter was disposed of, he
would ask the Senate to take up and
complete the Chinese Enumeration bill.
The Montana election case was again
taken up. Call addressed the Senate in
opposition to the report of the majority
Of the committee, declaring the Repub-
lican claimants (Saunders 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
addressed the Senate. He regarded the
question not from partisan point of
view, but as a question OF law, on the
proper determination of which depended
the,orderiy behavior of the Senate in the
future. The question was whether
Montana should be allowed toI select her
own representatives. The plain logic of
the arguments on the Democratic side
of the chamber was that the right to
make the selection was reserved to the
Senate. From that he dissented. Such
doctrine would lead to chaos and con-
fusion. What, he asked, would have
been the condition of the Senate if it
had attempted to say for many years
past whether the Legislature of a State,
in the election of Senators, did or
did not express the will of the people ?
A good many Senators on his
side of the chamber, including himself,
thought certain States had not been rep
resented in the Senate according to the
will of the people. He was not insen-
sible to the great wrong inflicted on the
people of those States, but he had not
been able to find anywhere under the
Constitution authority for the Senate to
determine question State had deter
mined for itself. He did not know what
the theory of the minority in the Mon
tana case was. If their report was to be
taken, it was that Clark and Maginnis
were the legal representatives from that
State, but if their arguments were good
for anything at all it was that nobody
had been sent to the Senate from that
State. He (Teller) held that
the only thing to be determined
was whether the State of Montana has
spoken through it's Legislature, and if it
had there was no authority IN the Sen
ate to revise that finding or to set it
troversy in the case? 1t was whether or
Iron hall Legislature were entitled to
seats in that body. If it was not that
then there was no controversy at all. II
they were there rightfully, it was a
rightful House and joint-Assembly that
elected the Republican claimants, and
was the rightful and only joint
Assembly of the State of Montana.
But the Senate had said in the Turpie
case that the Legislature of Indiana had
to decide for itself who were entitled tc
seats in that body. Although there
might have been the 'grossest outrage
committed in admitting the men to the
seats, the Senate held lin that case) that
it had no right to interfere. Righting
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 itsel1
an investigator of elections all over the
country, there would be an end Of
it's usefulness, and he submitted to
the Senators on the other side that, sit
uated as many of them were, they could
not afford to insist that such power
should be exercised by the Senate.
Whether the returning board of Mon
tana exercised authority properly or not,
was not a question for the Senate; it was
a question for the Legislature of Mon
tana.
Turpie held that, in the Indiana case
tne Legislature 1CSelI passed JuQ1clally
upon the contested seats, whereas the
Legislature of Montana had not passed
judicially on the contested seats from
Silver Bow county. If it had done so,
there would have been no dispute in the
Care.
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 it was apparent therefrom that
as to the five representatives from Silver
Bow county, neither set had certificates
according to form; the Senate of Mon
tana was tie, and in the House there
were twenty-five Republican members
and twenty-four Democratic members,
about whose rights to seats there was no
question. 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 majority on the Republican
side by which the Republican contest
ants could have been seated, These
simple facts, he thought, contained all
the elements of a just decision in the
matter, and showed that the Repub-
lican claimants for seats in the Senate
hoA N, a ;or,+xy ~, ;o:p+-ho1Iof and ho Il