The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1899-12-17
oUAY'S SEAT IS IN QUESTION.
ARGUMENT HEARD ON THE LEGAL
ASPECT OF THE CASE.

Right OF the Governor to Make nm
Appointment when the LegisIa-
ture Fails TO Elect, IL Disputed.
Ex-senator EdmundH One of the
Attorneys Who Appeared Against
Quay-Other Sides Hold That a
State Is Entitled to Its Full Rep
resentation.
Washington. Dec. 16.-An Investigation
of the rights of former Senator Quay of
Pennsylvania to seat in the Senate by
appointment of the Governor OF Pennsyl-
vania was begun to-day by the Commit
tee on Privileges and Elections.
The hearing to-day was purely a legal
argument ON the right of the Governor in
the circumstances which arose in the case
of Mr.. Quay
Hon. John p. Elkln, Attorney General of
Pennsylvania, appeared for the common
wealth of Pennsylvania and former Sem
ator Edmunds for those who demonstrated
against the seating OF Mr.. Quay. Mr..
Edmunds had as coadjutors Hampton L.
Carson and George Wharton Pepper
w. ]. Brennan, an attorney OF Pittsburg,
members of the Pennsylvia Legislature.
Mr.. Ellkn contended that sovereign
state was at all times entitled to fun
representation I'm the Senate according to
the spirit and letter of the Constitution.
The failure of the Legislature to perform
its duty ought not and could
not operate TO the states dis
advantage in the Senate. The
true position, in his opinion, was that the
Governor enjoyed the fun power 10 fill
any vacancy that might occur in the
states representation for any reason
whatever
Not Paid by WnnamaIxer.
When Attorney Carson began his areu-
ment Senator Penrose Of Pennsylvania,
Interrupted, asking, do you not appear
here as the paid attorney of John Wana-
maker?"
MIR. Carson denied that he appeared in
the pay of any one.
Former Senator Edmunds then seized the
opportunity to disclaim for himself any
connection with Mr.. Wanamaker in the
case.
MY only relations with Mr.. Wana-
maker" said he, ARE that / sometimes
buy tinware at his establishment"
Case of the Opposition.
Mr.. Carson presented an elaborate legal
| and constitutional argument against the
| Seating of Mr.. Quay. He doubted the de-
| sirability of according to the state ex-
ecutive such authority.
Former Senator Edmunds declared that
/ the appointive authority was being con-
/ stantiy trenched upon by the executive
| power, not only of the states, but of the
| nation itself The President was exercis-
| ing such power by making recess appoint
| ments of men who previously had been re-
| jected by the Senate. This, he regarded
| as dangerous and urged the Senate 20 take
| firm stand against such usurpation OF
| power as a protection to itself.
Mr. Quay's case, he said, did not fall
| within the authority conferred upon a
Governor to fiji vacancy in the state $
| representation.
| In rebuttal Attorney General Elkin cited
| a position taken by Mr.. Edmunds in the
Senate in 1879 upholding a Governors right
| to appoint, to which Mr.. Edmunds replied
| the cases were totally different.
Mr. Elkin concluded that the judgment
of the Governor as to the necessity for
| calling an extra session OF a Legislature
which had failed to elect a senator was
final and conclusive In the premises.