The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1890-04-11
The Montana Senators, Case.

WASHINGTON, April 10.-Among the bills re-
ported from the committee and placed on the
calendar, were the following: The senate bill
approprlating S2,3l900O forthe improvement OF
the Columbia river, Oregon. the expenditures
not TO exceed $4,000 in one year.
The House bill TO and vessels disabled in
waters conterminous TO the United States and
Canada.
The Senate bill to revive the grade of lieuten-
ant general of the army
The president pro TEN lngallS 81 remarked thai
he was in error yesterday in allowing the mo-
ton 10 take up the Chinese enumeration bill
while the Montana election case was undis-
posed OF, either by being postponed laid aside
informally or other action
Hale-Then the chair rules that the Montana
case is to proceed until completed
The President pre- tem.-Until completed
Hale gave notice that as soon as the Mon
tana matter was disposed Of, he would ask the
Senate TO take up and complete the Chinese
enumeration bill
up. Call addressed the Senate in opposition to
the report OF the majority of the committee
declaring the Republican claimants. Sanders
ana 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
referred to hoar and then Teller addressed the
Senate. He regarded the question not from a
partisan point OF view, but as a question of
law, and the proper determination OF which de-
pended the order and behavior of the Senate in
Montana should be allowed 10 Sc
lect her own representatives The
plain logic of the arguments on tie Dem
ocratlc side OF the chamber was that the right
10 make the selection was reserved to The
Senate From that he dissented; such docterne
would lead TO chaos and confusion. What
he said. would have been the condition of the
Senate If 1t had attempted TO say for many
years past whether the legislature of a state in
electlng Senators. did or did not express The
viii OF the people:' a good many Senators on his
6ir1crh
that certain states has not been represented in
the Senate according to the will-of the people
be was not 1nsenSible to the wrong inflicted on
lne people OF those states, but he had not been
able TO find any where under the constitution
authority for the Senate to determine ques-
tlon state had determined for itself. He did
not know what the theory of the minority in the
Montana case was II their report was to be
taken, ii was that Clark and Maginnis were the
legal representatives from that state but if
Their arguments were good for anything at all,
II was that nobody had been sent to the Senate
from that state He (AIr. Teller held the only
thing to be determined was whether the state Of
Montana had spoken through its legislature:
ana, IL IL haos there was no authority in
the Senate TO revise that finding or set it aside
What, he asked, was the controversy in the
cases II was whether or not the five men who
had sat in the Iron hall legislature were
Untitled TO seats in that body Ii it was not
that, there was no controversy at all If thew
were there rightfully IL was the rightful house
and the joint assembly that elected the Repub-
assembly of the state of Montana But the
Senate had said in the Turpie case that the
legislature OF Indiana had 10 decide for itself
who were entitled to seats in that body AL
though there might have been the prossest
outrage committed, in admitting the men To
the seats, the Senate held lin that case) IL had
no right Of lnterference; that the rightinr 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
n oil nl1
the country there would be an end to its useful
ness. land ne submitted TO the Senators on the
other SIDE that situated 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 Montana exercised its
authority properly or not. was not a question
ture of Montana.
Turpie held that in the Indiana case the legis-
lature itself passed judicially upon the contested
seats, whereas The legislature of Montana had
not passed ludlclally on the contested seats
from Silver Bow county, If 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 saidit was apparent there
from that as 10 the five representatives from
Silver Bow county, neither set had certificates
according 10 form. The senate of Montana was
q Tie ana IN the house there were % Republican
members and "a Democratic members about
whose rights to seats there was no question.
JOINT ballot. or, # the contest over Silver Bow
county had come 10 be decided by the house there
was majority on the Republican side by which
the hepuDncan contestants could have been
seated These simple facts. he THOUGHT. con.
taihed all the clements for Just decision in the
matter and showed the Republican claimants
ior seats IN The senate had majority on the
JOINT ballot and had a majority in the house
without any reference to the members from Sill
yer Bow county
Edmunds and Eustis had a brief personal
7c-,
OF weeks ago. EuStis then argued on the Mon
lana matter Sherman asked whether twenty |
nve hepuDhcan members Of the house did not !
constitute majority of that body
Eustis admitted that numerically TWENTY-FIVE |
was more than twenty-four but added that |
twenly-hNe did not make a quorum and con |
5s a meaning, twenty-five was not
larger that twenty-four A Quorum was twenty !
eight. He went on TO relate some matters /
within his own experience of returning board /
measures IN MS own state. and spoke of the leg
lslatlve body OF which he rad been a member (
lhefe having been enloined by q drunken. fed |
eral Republican judge" from taking the oath |
OF ONCE ana OF its having taken the oath in de-
nance OF that Injunction. He also referred to
tne seating OF William Pitt kellogg in the SEN /
ate of the United States. and said with that act
OF the part OF lie Republican party before his |
N Hhnu lnere was nothing left to excite surprise
Ia , regard 10 any contested election case.
Inc debate dr1fted again in the direction of /
INT Iurple case and Voorhees, spoke on that !
suDlecl. The question having been propose1 /
py henna as to whether forty Senators, with |
unqueSuoned credentials {fortv-t,yo being a ;
quofunl) could 20 to work and orranize and |
pass upon credentials of the other forty-two |
whose lue was questioned Hoar said he would |
ing TO answer il
-, ! nat was precisely Kenna said the question |
I 1 Prssenleo itself in the Montana case I
r =. sara,ai to the question were made
them came straight to the point