The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1893-03-22
THREE so-oALIED rREcEDENrs.

The vote of the senate committee on
privileges and elections in the cases Of
Messrs. Allen, Mantle and Beckwith in
dictates clearly that craftsmanship will
not control the senate's judgment in de-
termining the results. Two democrats
and three republicans voted to seat the
claimants and three democrats and one
republican voted against seating. Sen
ator Chandler, however, explained that
he voted in favor for the purpose of pre-
venting a tie, and intimated that this
would not control his action when the
cases are submitted to the senate. The
absence of party divisions IN the COM
mittee may be taken to Indicate q SINH
lar situation in the senate when the
final vote is reached. An interesting
feature is that Senator Aliens case was
not considered separately in the report,
though the conditions in this instance
are quite different. The Wash
ington legislature was IN session after
his term had expired and a vacancy ex-
listed which could have been filled. But
in the other two cases the two legisla-
lures had adjourned before the vacan-
c.es occurred.
There are three interesting prece-
dents of cases not altogether similar,
but the only one by which the senate
can in any way be governed. The old
est relates to the appointment of James
Lannan by the governor Of Connecticut
to fill a new term in 1925. He was de-
MED his seat because it was held that
the constitution conferred upon the
legislature alone the power to appoint a
senator for the new term. This deci-
sion seems to have been in accordance
with the general purpose of the trainers
OF our constitution. rather han con-
to the strict construction of the
law as interpreted in another case.
The next senatorial appointment was
that of Mr.. Sewer, of Arkansas, in 1886.
The state was admitted in June that
year and during the following autumn
Mr.. Sewer was elected a senator. 1t
happened, though, that in the allotment
OF the different classes under the con
s%titution he was placed among the SEN
ators whose terms expired in March,
1887, and the legislature could not elect
a senator as it was not in session after
the allotment was made. He was an
pointed by the governor to fill the va
cancy, the senate holding that as the
time when he should GO out of office
was determined by lot and the legisla-
ture having no opportunity to fill the
vacancy, the state should not be de-
prived Of it's representative.
The third case is that of Senator Bell,
OF New Hampshire, who was appointed
by the governor at the beginning of a
new term in March, 1879. Under an
amendment to the state constitution,
two legislatures had been elected, the
term Of one expiring before a senator
was to be chosen, while the term of the
new body was to begin in June, 1879.
The senate committee held that the
last legislature was tho proper body to
elect the senator. Tho majority of the
senate committee reported in favor of
unseating Bell. He was seated, how
ever, and tho case thus became one of
the several presidents.
1t will be noticed hat these appoint
ments were made in all instances be-
cause Of accidents and exigencies. In
none OF the states did n legislature re-
fuse to do it's duty. 1t would seem,
therefore, that not one OF these cases is
rightly entitled to be called a precedent
for such situations as have arisen in the
three states Of Wyoming, Montana and
Wnab;,,t~,