The critic. (Washington, D.C.) 1890-1891, 1891-02-09
FORTUNATE FOR DUBOIS.
PRECEDENTs WHICH APPLY TO HIS
ELECTION TO THE SENATE.
Senatorial Elections In Florida Which
win Help Mr.. Dubois in Maintaining
the Validity OF His Election.

Int VI Ills EitCtiOus
The attempt of certain dsgruntled ele-
ments in the Idaho Legislature to undo
tho election Of Mr.. Dubois as Senator for
the term beginning the 4th of March next
is exciting some interest. Fortunately
for Mr.. Dubois there are two precedents
which exactly fit his case.
They are the contested cases OF Hart
vs. Gilbert from Florida in the Forty-first
Congress. The facts briefly are that
Florida had been without representation
from 1861 to 1868. The Legislature under
reconstruction met on Monday, June 8,
1868, and on June TO- the second Tuesday
after its organization, IL began balloting
for Senator, three vacancies to fill, one for
the term expiring March 3, 1862 one for
the term expiring March Q, 1873, and one
for the term running from 1869 to 1875.
The Legislature balloted in separate
Houses without result and adjourned to
meet the next day in joint session. on
that day II elected Senator for the term
expiring March 3, 1869, and adjourned TO
Senator for the term expiring March 3,
1878, an adjourned sine die. However, the
Joint session assembled the next day and
elected Abijah Gilbert for the term begin
ming March 4, 1860, and ending March 3,
1875.
The same Legislature in January, 1870
elected Ossan b. Hart to represent the
State in the Senate for the term beginning
March 3, 1869, and ending March 4, 1870.
In the meantime Mr.. Gilbert had been
sworn in. Mr.. Hart came here and con-
tested the seat. The case was referred to
the Committee on the Judiciary, COM
posed of Senators Trumbull, Stewart,
Edmunds, Conkling, Rice, Carpenter and
Thurman.
The chief ground of contest was that
Gilbert was not elected IN conformity with
the act Of Congress regulating the time
and manner OF electing Senators. In re-
gard to this point the report says:
''The only ground for the objection
arises from the fact that the Legislature
failed to take action the second Tuesday
after its organization in regard to the
third Senator who was to be elected, but
II took action on the subject of electing
Senators and actually voted, though UNI
successfully, on that day for persons to
| fill the two existing vacancies"
The report then declares that Mr.. Gil
bert was elected by the proper Legislature,
"the one chosen next preceding the term
| which would commence on March 4,
| 1862"
The report continues. "There being
| three Senators to elect, II took action that
day (the second Tuesday, in reference
| only to two of them. Did its failure 10
| take action on that day y y y in refer
ence to the third Senator render his cleo
ton u y INVALID The committee
| thinks not"
After reciting the facts as to the adj
| journment sine die and the subsequent
meeting the next day, the report of the
| committee thus concludes.
| "In no view which the committee car
take would the petitioner be entitled to 9
seat in the Senate, for il the election Of
the sitting member was irregular that Of
the petitioner by the same Legislature at &
subsequent session was equally So"
The report of thecommittee was adopted
after brief debate, and Mr.. Hart wen
back home.
| In the Forty-second Congress a similar
contest came up between Joseph ] Rey
nolds and Morgan G. Hamilton of Texa
and was decided in precisely the sam,
way, the case of Hart vs.. Gilbert being
cited as binding precedent. In.this cas-
there. was no debate and the vote wa
i unanimous.