The Iola register. [volume] (Iola, Allen County, Kansas) 1875-1902, 1893-07-14

"the members of the two Houses
There can be no controversy as II
what "two Houses" constituted "the
legislature of this State at thai
time, and at all time during that ses.
sion. That the Dunsmore House was
not either House of "the Legislature
is equally apparent, whether we con
strue the facts or the decision of the
Supreme Court of the State. Their
that body under the law had no parl
in the initial proceedings which were
to be had in each House acting sepa
rately. What transpired i'm the Duns.
more House on the first day is as ire
levant as what transpired in the com
mon council of the city of Topeka or
that day. Had l received a majority
of the Senate, as / did i'm the House
could my title have been successfully
questioned, although Mr.. Martin
might have, at the same time, receiv.
ed majority in the DunsmOre House,
Yet / would not have received Ger.
tificate of election, because the Lieu.
tenant Governor took no account o.
what transpired i'm the House of Rep.
ressntatives, but acted entirely on the
record of proceedings in the Senate
and Dunsmore House, and because
the Governor would not recognize any
action of the House of Representa-.
tives.
/ know of no deliberative assembly
in which the first principles of the
law of parliament are recognized, from
the most inconsiderable town meeting
up to the august body that is called
upon to decide this case, in which
any person is considered a member
and entitled to take part in its dclib-
erations until his credentials have
been presented and he has
been recognized as member by the
body and its presiding officers. When
the joint assembly meets, which is
two weeks after the meeting of the
Legislature, the membership of each
House is determined, the individuals
who are members are known and
may be recognized by an officer law
fully chosen and authorized for that
purpose. designated as President OF
the Senate and Speaker of the House.
When a member who is SO recognized
arises in joint assembly to vote, his
quality as such member is known and
But if a person who has not identi-
fled himself with either House arises
in joint assembly to vote, the case is
very different. Who can know that
he ever was elected or that he has q
certificate of election, or that he is the
person named therein, or that he is
eligible to a seat if he has been elect
ed. The POpulist answer to these
questions while they were under con-
sideIation at Topeka, as gravely ex-
pressed by distinguished member of
that party, was triumphant and to
them apparently satisfactory. He
said, ~ suppose man ought to know
whether he is elected or not" but
will honorable Senators who have not
been initiated into the household of
faith be content with that answer?
The DunsmOre House was no House
at the time of the joint assembly.
The assumed members elect" to the
Legislature who were acting in that
body had not been recognized as such
by any lawful authority; its so-called
membership had not been purged;
whether they were "members-elect,"
and II SO whether they were eligible
to seats In the House of Representa-
tives, was unknown. And 1t must
not be forgotten that the votes receiv-
ed by Mr.. Martin were not given on
the roll call of the House of Represen-
tatives, but on roll call of this ille-
gal body, by person who was not a
member of the authorized clerical force
of the House of Representatives.. I'm
der such procedure who can know
who votes? But that was not all.
The Lieutenant Governor upon these
proceedings declared the election of
Mr.. Martin without permitting q roll
call of the House of Representatives
and without considering the votes of
sixty.tWo members given on that roll
call, or the votes of fifteen Senators
who demanded the right to vote be-
fore any result was announced
Thus it will be observed that the
letter and the reason and spirit of the
act ef Congress contemplate that only
actual mc.shars of the two Houses as
then constituted shall participate in
the joint assembly.
But suppose it be assumed that
"msmbsrs-elect," who are in a third
House which has been organized in
good faith, and upon bona fide dis
pute, may participate in the joint as
sembly, can that principle be invoked
in this case where third House was
0fs.siZed in pursuance of a deliberate
plan to ce.tf.Sl the legislative branch
of government, notwithstanding the
fact they were in the n.ipority, and
on q contention which is puerils and
absurd ia the face of all precedent,
and after the pretaaSe on which they
proceeded had been condemned by
the Supreme Court In an action
brought by themselves prior to the
Organization of the Legislature? That
is the case here.
Without the sstes Of the defeated
candidates who acted 10 members
thereof the DunsmOre House nssas
had quorum to organize with. The
case of three Of these persons, viz;
Shellabarger, Rice and Mitchell, had
been by their own application SUBJ
mitted to the Supreme Court before
the meeting of the Legislature and
decided against them. Yet these
three persons were admitted to
seats i'm that body and two of them
voted for my opponent. Was this in
good faith? Was it not rather in the
Worst sysE Sf faith and in defiance of
all Constituted &uIs9sEitg3
The right Of the 'ornei i6aaAt 4syeal-
ed candidates to assist In that orgafii:
= 49, 81 Il H. :