St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1890-04-11
talk ALL AROUND IT,
Republican Senators Evade
the Vital Point in the
Montana Case.
They Propose to Seat San
ders and Power and That
Settles 1t.
Pan-Amepieans Favor Reeip-
rocity Between the Sew
eral Republics.
Trooper Dell Wild'S ASsail-
ant Gets OFF With a
Reprimand.

WASHINGTON, D. c., April 10.-The
consideration of the Montana election
case was resumed by the senate to-day,
and Mr.. Hoar spoke in support of the
majority report. Mr.. Gray replied to
Mr.. Hoar, and then Mr.. Teller, mem
Der of the committee On privileges and
elections, addressed the senate. lie re-
garded the question not from partisan
point of view. but as question OF law,
on the proper determination of which
depended the orderly behavior OF the
senate in the future. 1t was not a
question whether two Republican or
two Democratic senators should repre-
sent Montana, but whether Montana
should be allowed to select her own rep
resentatives. That was the plain Eng
ligh of it. The plain logic of the argu-
mentS on the Democratic side of the
chamber was that the right to make the
selection was reserved to the senate.
doctrine would lead to chaos and
confusion. 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 state,
in electing senator's, did or did not eX-
press the will of the people? A good
many senators on his side of the cham
ber, including himself. thought that
certain states had not been represented
in the senate according to the
VIII of Their People.
He was not insensibe to the grea
wrong inflicted on the people by those
states. He was as much alive to that as
anybody. But he had not been able to
find, anywhere under the constitution,
authority for the senate to determine
the question when a state had deter
mined 1T tor itself. He did
not know what the theory of
the minority in the Montana case
was. If their report was to
be taken, it was that Messrs. Clark and
Maginnis were the legal representa-
tives from that state, but, if their argu-
mentS were good for anything at all. it
was that nobooy had been sent to the
senate from that state. He (Mr. Teller)
held that the only thing to be deter
tana had spoken through its legislature,
or, if it had, there was no authority in
the senate to revise that finding or to
set it aside What, he asked, was the
controversy in the case? 1t was whether
or not five men who had sat in the Iron
hall legislature were entitled to seats in
that body. If it was not that, then
there was no controversy at all. If they
were there rightfully. it was rightful
house and the joint assembly that
elected the Republican claimant was the
rightful and only joint assembly of the
state of Montana. But the senate had
said, in tee Hurpie case, that the legis-
lature of Indiana had to
Decide for Itself
who we're entitled to seats in that body.
Although there might have been the
grossest outrage committed in admit
ting men to seats, the senate held in
that case that it had no right of inter-
ference. The righting of that wrong
was not entrusted to the senate of the
United States, but to the people of In
diana. The two cases, he said were on
all fCurs. There was no legal distinc-
ton between them. If the senate should
ever proceed to make itself the investi-
gator of elections att over the country,
there would be an end of its usefulness.
And he submitted to senators OH the
other side that, situated as many of
them were, they could not afford to Iu-
sist that such power should be exer-
cised III the senate. If the senate were
to exercise in this case, the senate
would have no excuse for not exer-
cising it in the case of senatorial
d.
South Carolina and Georgia He did
not believe that the senate had such
power. Whether the returning board
of Montana had exercised its authority
properly or not, was not question for
the senate; it was question of the leg
iSlature of Montana. If the people of
Montana had been outraged in the mat
ter, it was for themselves to redress the
wrong; and they would be sure to do it
at the next election. Mr.. Turpie made
statement in correction of some points
mentioned by Mr.. Teller in regard to
his (Mr. Turpie's), election: and the
at some length. In the Indiana case.
according to Mr.. Turpie, the legislature
itself had passed judicially upon the
contested seats in that body, whereas
the legislature of Montana had not
passed Judicially upon the contested
seats from Silver Bow county. If it had
done so there would have been no
Dispute in This Case.
That would have been the end of it.
Mr.. Sherman said he had always thought
that the Montana case was in nut
shell. He found all the facts sufficiently
stated in half page of the minority re-
port to control his judgment. He read
three paragraphs from the minority re-
port, and said that it was apparent
therefrOm that as to the five representa-
tives from Silver Bow county neither
set had certificates according to form.
The senate of Montana was tie, and in
the house there were twenty-five Re-
publican members and tWenty-four
Democratic members about whose
rights to seats there was no question.
There was therefore a Republican ma
Jority on joint ballot; or. If the contest
over Silver Bow county had come to be
decided by the house of representatives
there was a majority on the Repub-
Iican side by which the Re
publican contestants could have
been seated. These simple facts,
he thought, contained all the elements
of just decision in the matter, and
showed that the Republican claimants
for seats in the senate had malOrity in
the house. without any reference to the
members from Silver Bow county. Mr..
Eustis said that he had been member
on the committee on privileges and
elections when the Turpie case was be-
fore that committee, and he went on to
argue that
There Was No Similarity
between that case and the Montana
case. "Do you think it competent for
the senate to go back of Precinct No.
"a in Silver Bow county and inquire into
the capacity OF the voters who elected, ,oI
failed to ect,representatives from that
county?' Mr.. Edmunds asked. Il
know that the senator from Vermont is