The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1891-06-06
The Florida senatorship.

It is evident that the opponents Of Call
intend to contest his election to the Senate.
They have not stated yet what course they
purpose TO pursue, and will not do so until
it is known whether the governor will issue
to Call certificate of election, but they are
very positive in asserting that he was not
legally elected.
Hon. w. A. Blount, a Pensacola lawyer,
has given a written opinion in which he
holds that the assembly which elected Call
was not the legislature of Florida. The
legislature, be says, is composed OF the
Senate and House of Representatives. The
House of Representatives was pres ent when
Call was elected, but the Senate was not.
because the Senate did not have a quorum
on the day the alleged joint assembly met.
1t was without the power to meet the House
in joint assembly.
There is some force, of course. in the
position which Mr.. Blount takes, and his
presentation Of the case may be accepted by
the governor In that event the governor
may withhold certificate from Call and
appoint a senator, just as if there had been
no election. A contest would thus be
inaugurated which the United States Sem
ate would have to settle.
Since the Florida senatorial election there
has been diligent search for precedents to
sustain the view that Calls election was
legal. The precedent that appears to be
most relied upon occurred during the first
session of the Thirty-ninth congress. The
credentials of John P. Stockton as senator
from New Jersey were presented Dec. 4,
1865. At the same time memorial from
number of members Of the New Jersey
legislature was presented protesting against
the admission of Mr.. Stockton on the
ground that he was not elected.
10 seems that the legislature was COM
posed Of eighty-one members. and that
in joint session forty voted for Mr.. Stock
ton and forty-one for Mr.. Ten Eyck and
other persons. The joint assembly passed
joint resolution to the effect that the person
receiving plurality of the votes cast should
be declared duly elected. The committee to
which the case was referred reported that
Mr.. Stockton was entitled to his seat. The
resolution was adopted, the vote standing
% yeas aud 81 nays. Three days afterwsrd
Senator Sumner made the point that the
resolution was improperly adopted, because
Mr.. Stockton had voted for himself and his
point was sustained by strict party vote.
the republicans at that time being in the
majority. Mr.. Stockton. however, was i'm
mediately elected by the legislature and
took his seat.
But il was established as a precedent in
MIR. Stockton's case, which afterward took
the shape of law, that a majority of the
two houses of the legislature Of a state is
necessary to elect a senator.
However, the Stockton case does not
seem to entirely cover the Call case. 1t is
true that Call received the votes of ma
jority of the members of the legislature,
and if there had been quorum present in
the Senate, SO that the Senate could have
transacted business legally at the time of
the joint meeting, there would be no ground
for questioning Calls election. The point
that is made is that the Senate, being with
out quorum. could not meet in joint ses-
sion; that, in fact, only one branch of the
legislature was legally present in the assem-
bly, which elected Call. The legislature, it
is asserted, was not in joint session, because
there were not both branches present.
But. under the law of congress providing
that a majority of the two houses is sutii-
Gent to elect Senator, is it necessary that
both houses should have quorum immedi-
ately preceding or during the meeting in
joint session. Good lawyers say that it is
not