The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1899-01-26
Statement from McGrav, the Defeated
His Opponents Election.
FOUR MORE NEW SENATORS
JOHN KEAN FORMALLY DECLARED
ELECTED IN NEW JERSEY,
CulbcrsOn i'm Texas, Clark ia Wyom-
ing and stewart in NeVada-Quuy
still Far from victory.

CEAtthESION, w. Va, Jan, Z0.--AIter
contest of over two weeks Internal Reve-
nue. Commissioner Nathan b. Scott was this
| afternoon elected United States senator
from West Virginia for the term ending
in March, 1905. Many predicted that there
would be a deadlock for weeks but de-
csive result was reached on the first joint
ballot when there were continued demon
strations of applause. Senator Elkins, Sen
ator-elect Scott and others were freely con-
! graduated on the management that pre-
vented what some considered a serious
crisis
At 1870 p m. to-day the presiding officer
| of the joint convention of the two branches
of the Legislature, after one ballot had been
| taken, declared N. B. Scott, at present COM
missioner OF internal revenue, the duly
| elected successor of Charles J. Faulkner in
the United States Senate. The vote stood:
Scott Rep, As; McGraw, Dem, As; Goff
Rep /. Total vote cast, 50. Necessary to
elect As.
AS the ballot stood when the last name
was called Scott had only AZ votes, and the
! deadlock, which had been expected seemed
assured. But just before the president of
the Senate started to announce the result,
Delegate Hunt arose and was recognized by
! the president He had voted for Judge
and voted for in separate sessions the pre-
| vious day. II desire to change my vote,
he said. During a brief speech, in which
he explained his position, there
breathless suspense. The galleries and
| chamber were crowded At first it appeared
as if he would join Delegate Hapstonstal,
| who voted for Golf, but he cast the vote
| which elected Scott Hapstonstall chung to
| Golf to the end. Delegate Asbury, who haa
| been absent during the entire session on ac-
| count of sickness was present and voted for
| Scott. The Democrats had hoped to keep
| him out of the convention. Morris (Rep),
| against whom contest was pending in the
| Senate, was not permitted to VOTE and the
| Taylor county seat in the House, which is
| claimed by Dent, Dem, was left vacant in
| accordance with the compromise agreement
reached Tuesday night between the leaders
| of the two houses.
Tonight it was given out that SCOTS
election would be contested before the Unit
ed States Senate. During the balloting the
Democrats filed protests against the votes
| of Getzendanner and Pierson, whom they
claim to be ineligible because they accepted
| a commission in the volunteer army while
holding their offices as senators. This they
will make the ground of the contest. The
| other ground will be because Scott received
only As votes a majority of the joint assem-
/ bly, or of all present, but one less than a
/ majority of all the members elected to the
| Legislature. AS precedent, they cite the
| observation-disclosures case in Kentucky, in
which the Senate refused to let Hunter take
| his heat because he had not received a ma
| jority of all the members of the Kentucky
Legislature. though he had received ma
| jority of those present and voting. SCOTS
| fight was directed by Senator Elkins, who
is supposed to have induced Hunt to change
from Blizzard to Scott with the decisive
| vote.
After the joint assembly of the two houses
| had declared the election of Mr.. Scott, Hon.
]. f. McGraw, the caucus nominee of the
| Democratic party for that office made the
| following statement:
Neither Mr.. Scott nor myself was elected
| to-day under the forms of law to the Sen
ate. 1 received forty-six votes in the joint
assembly He received forty-eght, and
/ Judge Golf received one. This gives Mr..
| Scott a majority of one over the combined
| vote of Judge Golf and myself, but of the
/ forty-eight votes received by Mr.. Scott two
| of them were the votes of state senator's
| who had forfeited their votes by reason of
| the provisions of Section 49, of Article 6, of
the state Constitution in the Senate, by the
| acceptances of lucrative offices under the
| federal government commissions in the
| army.) Therefore Mr.. Scott in reality and
in law received only forty-sx legal votes.
| The vote, therefore. for him was forty-six
the vote for myself was forty-six
| and the vote for Judge Golf was
one and, in consequence, there was
no election. In addition to this the
ballot in joint assembly was taken in the
absence of any and all representation from
the county of Taylor and from the Fourth
! senatorial district, so that the pretended
election had without any representa-
ton from that senatorial district and from
one county in the Legislature and with the
absence of such representation the vote re-
ceived for Mr.. Scott in the joint assembly
was not a majority of all senators and dele
gates to which the various counties cf the
State were entitled under the Constitution
thereof. This question arose and was ex-
pressy determined by the Court of Appeals
of Kentucky and the Senate of the United
States in the observation-disclosures case The
questions raised by me are not of per-
sonal interest or advantage, but l deem il
my duty to SEQ that they are properly pre-
scented to the Senate of the United States
upon the question of Mr.. Scott's qualilica-
ton therein, not only in the name Of the
Democratic party which has stood by me
so Loyalty in this contest, but likewise in the
name OF the constitutional government.
which cannot. even at the hazard of per-
sonal disadvantage. be SO ignored. / there
fore feel IL my duty TO see that these ques-
tions be presented and a protest be made
10 the Senate Of the United States" Mr.