Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1899-10-18

TUTIONAL PROVISION REQUIR-
ING A MAJORITY OF ALL MEM
BEERS ELECTED TO GIVE LEGAL
ITY TO AN ELECTION.
Special to the Register.
WASHINGTON, D. c., October IL
One of the most interesting of the cases
which will come before the committee
on privileges and elections of the
United States Senate is that in which
John T. MoGraw will seek to show that
N. B. Scott was illegally chosen as SEN
ator- from West Virginia Frank l..
Welles, Mr.. McGraw's attorney here,
will go to West Virginia the latter part
of this or the first of next week to con-
clude the taking CT dispositions in this
case, there being several points upon
which he expects to secure evidence
that will remove any uncertainty that
might possibly exist as to the facts.
Mr. Welles is very confident of the
strength of the case as it now stands,
and regards the attempt which will be
made to GUST Scott as by no means a
hopeless one, in spite of the Republican
majority in the Senate. 1t is expected
that the evidence will be all ready by
the middle of November for submits
sion to the Senate committee.
The procedure in a case OF this kind
before the Senate is differents from that
in a House contest. 1t is not really a
contest at all, for there is no ONE claim
ing SCOTS title to the SenatoBsh1p. NO
evidence is taken before the Senate
committee under cath, but the commit
tee will give hearings to either side and
will take cognizance of all facts brought
before it. When Scott's credentials are
presented in the Senate they will be
referred along with McGraw's protest
to the committee on privileges and cleo
tons. 1t is usually the custom
TO SWEAR In THE SENATOR
de facto, and this will doubtless be done
in Scotts case.
There is cons iderable popular mis-
apprehension" said Mr.. Welles, ''as to
the points involved in the McGraw-
Scott case. 1t is supposed by many
that it depends upon the question of the
qualifications Of certain members of the
West Virginia Legislature-the mill
tary Senators-over which of course
the United States Senate has no juris-
diction. This gives the impression that
the case is weak. But we do not rely
upon that point at all. While we
should like to have g. decision as to the
validity Of the seats of the military
Senators, the case rests upon much
stronger foundation. There was in the
first place no question about the quail
fieation and election OF the military
Senators. They were duly elected, but
subsequently vacated their seats by ac-
cepting commissions in the United
States army The State Senate, how
ever, did not inquire into the question
of vacancy, which was one solely for
the courts, as involving the construc-
ton of the State constitution. No con-
tests were inaugurated and the two
military Senators took part in the or
ganlzatlOn or the Senate.
Into the qualifications of these Sen
ators. the United States Senate cannot,
of course, inquire. But the federal Sem
ate can and does inquire into the con-
stitutional organization of the State
House and Senate, the two being the
electors forming a third and separate
body called the joint convention. The
federal Senate does not inquire into
the qualifications of any member, but
into the validity of the House and Sem
ate and of the joint convention callee
for the purpose of choosing United
States Senator. In this connection we
propose to ask for construction of the
point brought up.
IN THE TURPIE CASE
In the Forty-ninth Congress, referred
to in the following paragraph of the
Senate Committees report: a major
ity of the committee do not mean to
be understood Ns now committing them
selves to an opinion upon the question
whether the Senate cannot refuse to ad-
NIT to seat a claimant who owes his
election to a legislative body which is
itself the result of fraud or crime,
which has overcome the true will of the
people, even if 1t have possessed itself
of legislative authority and of the tech
meal evidence of rightful character, or
whether the judgments of such a body
as to the title to seats of it's individual
members are entitled to any respect
whatever. If that question shall here
after unhappily arise it will be dealt
with on its own merits
Even should the committee decide
against us on that proposition our case
would not be weakened. The most i'm
portant contention we make is that
Scott was not elected by a majority
of the votes of the legislature, as re-
quired by federal law governing sena-
torial elections. This law declares that
the presiding officer shall call the
names of all the members present.
There were two members of the joint
convention in question, one senator and
one delegate. whose names were not
called, and who if called would have
voted for McGraw, giving him 4S votes.
Scott As votes and Golf one vote.
Forty-nine members of the legislature.
rs is we'll known, constituting a major
ity Of the joint convention. joined in a
protest to the United States Senate
against the seating of Scott. None of
these members voted for Scott. and all
of them were members of the legisla-
ture at the time it was organized and
Al