Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1890-02-06
MARQUIS IS-LAMPSON CONTEST.
BOURBON ANARCHY IN THE SENATE.

|
terly regardless of law, precedent, OIL
justice. Wednesdays and Thursdays
proceedings in the Marquis -Lampson
contest were disgrace to the State
They were characterized by the most
shameless violation of parliamentary
law and the most tyrannical trampling
under foot of the rights of the minority
as well as of the conteStee. No one
who read the full, clear, and reliable ac-
count of our dispatches from Columbus
could doubt that the Democrats intend
ed to seat Mr.. Marquis by the mere
force of their majority without regard to
what is honest, just, and right in the
case.
There was not even show of fairness
about the course of the Democrats from
beginning to end. 1t was utterly un-
principled, outrageous, and tyrannical.
1t began by clumsy forgery of tele-
gram, by which it was sought to draw
Senator Schneider, the one Republican
from Hamilton county, home, and thus
offset the absence of the Democratic
Senator Howells, and give the Bourbons
a majority of one. This piece of dirty
trickery need only be mentioned to be
condemned. 1t illustrates the straits to
which the Democrats in the Senate have
come, and shows their utter disregard of
the means used to seat Mr. Marquis.
This unprincipled trick was in keep
ing with what followed. From the
time President Adams, pro tenn, was
called to the chair until adjournment,
everything was carried witha high hand
by the Bourbons. Mr. Adams rulings
were in nearly every case without the
sanction of accepted parliamentary law,
and were arbitrary and tyrannical as a
ukase of the Car. The Republicans
could only protest and then submit to
the inevitable.
The contest case proper began with
Senator Corcoran's motion, by which
the statutory rules governing such a
contest were radically modified. The
section of the Revised Statutes modified
lays down certain rules TO govern such
cases, "unleSS the Senate otherwise Or
der" Mr.. COrcoran's motion was there
fore permissible. The subject matter
of the motion was decidedly objection
able however. 1t provided, in the first
place, for hearing by the Senate of the
testimony already at hand, by which
was meant the summary" prepared by
Mr.. Marquis attorney, and for the refer
ence to the Committee on Elections Of
all testimony that it may be desired to
add what is already at hand. These
sections were in the nature of COM
promise, and while Objectionable, as all
compromises are, were yet less so than
what followed. The third and fourth
sections applied the gag to debate on all
subjects connected with the contest, and
only gave each Senator not to exceed
five minutes 'to explain his vote" 1t
was this shutting off all chance for a
protest even much less for any discuss
ion of important points that were GER
tain to come up, that justly aroused the
opposition of the Republicans. 1t was
made all the more aggravating by the
fact that Mr.. CorcOran moved the pre-
vious question at once and thus pre-
vented all discussion of this radical
change of the rules governing the con-
test. This was using the strength of
the majority in most arbitrary manner
and it was proper and natural that the
Republicans should have fought most
vigorously for the just rights of the mi
nority.
Having adopted rules to suit them
selves, the Democrats next began to
hear the testimony, or rather "summa-
ry" of it, which Mr.. Converse, the Dem
cratic attorney for Mr. Marquis, had
prepared and which went by the name
of the report of the Committee on Elect |
ions. This summary" which had been
seen by no Senator and was entirely the |
work of a hired attorney, a partisan OF
Mr.. Marquis, and man as well known
for unscrupulousness as for ability, was
in every sense an utterly unjust and un-
fair presentation of the case. From the |
very nature of things it was prejudiced
statement and would have been instant
ly ruled out as incompetent evidence in
any court of law in the land. Yet upon |
such testimony the Bourbon Senators
have decided the case.
Protests from Republicans were of no
avail. Mr.. Adams, the President pro
tem., was arrogant and unreasonable
and refused to even listen to the minor
ity report which the two Republican
members of the Committee on Elections
had prepared. A motion to administer
the oath to the members of the Senate |
as jurors in the case in accordance with
the Constitution was rejected by Presi-
dent pro TEN. Adams for the patent rea
son that the Bourbons did not want to
be bound down by such solemn obli-
CATION They wanted to be free to de-
eide the matter according to party ex-
pediency, not according to the testi-
mony.
Mr.. Converse, the attorney of Mr..
Marquis, proceeded to read the testimo-
ny as it had been doctored up, and
when Judge Nash, Mr.. Lampson's at
attorney, objected, the Bourbons en-
dorsed the proceedings by strict party
vote, thus depriving Mr.. Lampson of
his constitutional right to present evil
dence in his own behalf and in just |
and proper manner. This is an unheard
of proceeding and as vicious as it is un-
principled, unjust, and unconstitutional.
The report of the Republican minority
of the Committee on Elections-Messrs.
Kerr and Massie-is very concise and
mastery arraignment OF the methods
used by the Bourbons. 1t shows that
the evidence was never submitted to
the committee and that the summary
was made without any examination of
the evidence, that the summary. so
called, which Attorney Converse has pre-
pared, is not summary of the evidence,
but report of the conclusions of sub
committee; that the summary" is in a
sense legal argument such as the COM
mttee had no right to make, not a COM
pend of the testimony; and that the
summary" is virtually the report and
the opinion of Mr.. Marquis attorney and
not of the committee.
The showing which is clear and &C
curate statement of the case, completely |
condemns the whole procedure. 1t prov
oI INT 70 nNoEa q