The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1890-04-11
sQU1RMING IN THEIR SEATS.

Teller Vainly Endeavors to Detract Atten-
tion From the Case in Hand.
WASHINGTON, April 10.-Among the bills
reported from committee and placed on the
calendar were the following: The senate
bill appropriating $2,349,00O for the i'm
provement of the Columbia river, the Ore
gon expenditures not to exceed 100000 in
one year; the house bill to aid vessels dis
abled in waters contiguous to the United
States and Canada; the senate bill to re-
vive the grade of lieutenant-general of the
army. - "s
President pro tenn Ingalls, said that he
was in error yesterday in allowing motion
to 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 must proceed until COM
pleted?''
President pro tem.-"Until completed" :"
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, 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
the majority report Gray replied to Hoar
and then Teller addressed the senate. He
regarded the question not from partisan
point 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 elect her
own representatives. The plain logic of the
arguments on the democratic side of the
chamber was that the right to make such
selection was reserved to the senate. From
that he dissented. Such doctrine would
lead to chaos and confusion. What, he
said, would have been the condition if it
whether the legislature of state,
not express the will of the people?
A good many senators on his side chamber,
including himself, thought certain states
had not been represented in the senate
was not insensible to the great wrong in
fiicted 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 the state had deter
mined for itself. The senate had said in
Ull0 uEplo Case Jldb bu0 legislature OF In
diana had to decide for itself who were
entitled to seats in that body. Although
there might have been the grofsest OUTRAGE
committed in admitting the men to seats
the senate held in that case that it had no
right of interfere.ce. Righting that
wrong was not entrusted to the senate of
the United States but to the people of In
diana. There was no legal distinction
between the cases.
Turpie held that in the Indiana case the
legislature itself passed judicially upon the
contested seats, whereas the legislature of
had not passed judicially on the
contested seats from Silver Bow county. If
dispute in the case.
Sherman said he found all the facts guf-
fciently stated in the minority report to
control his judgment. He read three para
graphs from the minority report and said it |
was apparent therefrom that as to the Ave |
neither set had certificates according
to form. The senate of Montana
was tie, and in the house
there were twenty-five republican members
and "a democratic members about whose |
right to seats there was no question. There
was therefore republican majority OH
Joint ballot, or if a contest over Silver Bow
county had come to be decided by the house
there was a majority on the republican side |
by which the republican 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 a majority in the |
house without any reference to |
members from Silver Bow county. |
Edmunds and Eustis had brief personal |
tilt, based upon Edmunds' remarks made
couple of weeks ago. Eustis then argued
On the Montana matter. Sherman asked |
whether 25 republican members of the
house did not constitute majority of that
body. Eustis admitted that numerically 25
we're more than 81, but added that 25 did
not make a quorum, and in the constitu-
tional meaning % was not a larger number
han a. A quorum was %. He went on to
state some matters within his own expert
snce of returning board measures in his
,wn state, und spoke of the Legislative body
,f which he had been member, they hav-
ng been enioined by drunken republican
federal Judge from taking the oath
# Office, and Of its having taken the oath in
iefiance of that injunction. He also