Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1899-12-16
QUAYS CASE


NSohtiiueu from flfSI FdSet
Carson opened the argument in remon-
STRANGE He objected to Mr.. Elkins' claim
that ne represented the commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, and, reminded the COM
mittee that a majority of the legis-
lature which, had sthe right to select
senator remdnstrated against the seating
of Mr.. Quay. At this point Senator PEN
rose, who occupied seat behind the chair
man OF the committee, caused momentary
sensation byI asking in a tone of angry
challenge If 1t We're not true that Mr.. Car
son was employed and paid by Mr. John
Wanamaker as his representative.
Mr.. Carson replied lit rs not true I am
not under the pay of any one"
Mr. Edmunls here rose and said that he
was not employed by Mr.. Wanamaker.
Senator Penrose retorted that he under
stood the relations. that existed between
Mr.; Edmunds and Mr.. wanamaker.
buy tfnware at his shop: that is all,
retorted MIR. Edmunds
Senator Pettus member of the COM
mlttee. addressing the chair, said that
while members of the committee might
speak IN manner not such as would be
assumed IN drawing room, he thought
the privilege Of rudely interrupting the
counsel should not be extended outside the
committee even 20 member of the United
States Senate.
Thereupon Senator Penrose lansed info
silence
Mr. Carson, proceeding with his argu-
ment, reclted the question presented with
all the circumstances He commended that
there could be no Interpretation of the Con-
stitution that could be made to warrant
the seating of Mr.. Quay under the circunl-
stances OF his appointment by the gov
ernor. He said there had been three solemn
decisions by the Senate of the question in
volved in this case and these decisions. in
compliance with the Constitution and pre-
cedents. forbade the seating of Mr. Quay.
Mr. II: carson took up the argument by Mr..
Elkins as to the Interpretation to be put
upon the word happens used in the
CONSTITUTION, and made application of it to
snow what absurdity would result from
using the word to signify continuing state
of being.
If man broke his leg on the 4th of
March, and it was not yet well on the
aGth OF April, he could not say. if asked
When II happened, that it was still happen
ing: II a lease happened to expire on the
10Th of June, it did not keep on expiring
forever after that. Passing from this re-
OF the constitutional use of the word and
OF It's construction. In this he followed
closely to the brief, which says, in oppo-
sltion TO an analogy being found between
executive recess appointments and appoint
ments to the Senate by governors. on which
Mr.. Eikins chiefly based his argument, af-
ter citing the several opinions of attorneys
general on Doth sides of the question that
~ hooo q heb" was passed. 10 SlOD lne pay OF
salaries to any person appointed to va
cancy which had occurred during a session
of the Senate
Since that time presidential appointments
nave been made, the brief says, but the
practice has always excited criticism and
opposition. AT no time was this opposition
more pronounced than when President
Cleveland, after his appointees to various
omces had been rejected by the Senate in
sisted upon reappointing those who were
personae noprgratae to the Senate as soon
as that body had risen: and the same thing
mas occurred In the administration of other
PRESIDENTS. An extension of this abuse of
presidential power may in the future. lead
to serious curtailment of the rights of
the Senate as vested in that body by the
careful provisions of the Constitution
Quotations From the Brief,
Even if it be conceded that the presi-
Dental power of appointment, under the
circumstances in question. is the result of
an administrative necessity for such an
interpretation of the constitutional proyis-
ion, it will be- noted that the circumstances
OF the case are radically different from
those which exist,in the case of a sena-
torial vacancy The presidential right of
appointment applies to offices in many in
stances occupied by single individuals so
ina that II a vacancy continues the duties of
the office cannot be discharged at all. In
the case, for example, OF the collector of
large port, it Is easy to- imagine the great
publc inconvenience which would result
If the failure of the Senate to confirm an
appointment were to involve a vacancy of
the office until the next session of Congress-
In the case of the Senate however desir-
able 1t may be that its membership should
be kept full), 1t Is extremely unlikely that
legislative inaction will seriously hamper
the prosecution of national business
las further distinction between the
case Of presidential appointments and the
case under discussion, it will be observed
that the appointment of administrative
officers is under the Constitution primarily
an executive function. The function of the
Senate is that of an advisory and consent
ing body
AS to the need that the Senate should be
kept full 1t is pointed out if this need had
been recognized by the trainers of the Con-
stitution they would not have left it at the
discretion Of the governors not to appoint
in giving them the power to appoint il
they wanted to-,
Ex-senator Edmunds.
Ex-senator Edmunds, following Mr.. Car
son, made a powerful argument against
the seating of Mr.. Quay. He said that ev-
cry decision had been adverse to the posi-
ton taken by the advocates of the seating
of Mr.. Quay. With reference to his having
himself cited authority by Mr.. Elkins,
he said that he had held that the governor
could appoint only when the vacancy &C.
CURED during recess of the legislature.
The appointment of Mr.. Quay, he said,
presented a case without precedent. 1t
was the most unique case on record. The
vacancy occurred in the midst Of a session
of the legislature, and there could be no
doubt about the opportunity for action and
the refusal to elect Mr.. Quay. If Mr. Quay
could be seated in the Senate there was no
reason why the appointment and reap
pointment might not be kept up indefi-
nitely.
Mr. Edmunds' argument was very brief.
After the conclusion of Mr.. Edmunds'
argument Mr.. w. ]. Bremen presented his
brief representing the protest of the DEM
ocratic executive committee of Pennsylva-
mia, against the seating of Mr.. Quay This
brief reviewed the case and argued the con-
stltutional question involved
James Stranahan also presented a brief
argument against the seating of Mr.. Quay,
after which Mr.. Elkins closed in support
of the right of Mr.. Quay to the seat.
The committee will decide later upon it's
meetings to consider the arguments and to
vote ON the question.