Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1899-05-18

airy, 1898, upon which date there was
| technically no vacancy since the term
| of Mr. Mitchell did not expire until
II O'Clock noon on the 4th day Of
March following. On the 9Th day of
March Immediately thereafter the gov.
ernor of Oregon appointed Mr.. Corbett
to fill the vacancy which had happened
when? Why, during a recess Of the
| legislature was the contention Of Mr..
| COrbett's friends. This point which
was argued for days in the debate on
the Corbett case cannot arise in the
Quay case In Pennsylvania the leg
| islature was in session on the 4th Of
| March when the senatorial term eX-
pireQ and for several weeks thereafter.
| In Oregon persons elected to the legis
lature had dispersed and gone to their
| homes before any vacancy had act
ually occurred. These facts are suffi-
cient to make the two cases very dis
similar.
| Again, the question as to whether or
not there had been any meeting of
| the legislature at all within the con-
| temptation of the constitution was de-
| bated for hours and hours in the Cor
| bett case, the friends Of the claimant
| insisting that in fact no legislature
had met inasmuch as the members
had failed to organize, and hence this
circumstance took the Oregon case out
of the category of cases controlled by
the precedents established in the Man
tie case, the Lanman case and others.
These points, which can have no place
in the Quay claim, furnished the
grounds for long and able arguments
on behalf of Corbett.
Of course the opponents Of Mr.. Cor
bett invoked and chiefly relied upon
the precedent of the Mantle case to
the effect that where the legislature
has failed to choose a senator for
! full term the governor cannot make
| the appointment, that a vacancy as
| contemplated by the constitution can
not happen in a term which has not
once been filled and that the legisla
ture only is competent to fill the SEN
atorial term in the first instance.
Corbett's right to seat was denied
| by a vote of 80 to 10, and at the time
it was very generally believed that no
| person, holding the appointment of
| governor, the legislature having failed
to elect, would ever again present him
self for admission to the senate. The
| recent precedents, it must be admitted,
are against Quay, but many Of the
| earlier precedents appear to be the
| other way. Beyond all question a
| great deal can be said pro and con.
! If anyone is disposed to regard the
controversy as one-sided we would
| commend to him a careful perusal Of
| Senator Spooner's two days speech in
| the Corbett case. Then let him read
! the opposing arguments Of Senators
| Caffery, Turley, Bacon and others in
the same debate. Whatever his pre-
| objections may be, ne will not fail to
appreciate the brilliant and able argu-
ment of the Wisconsin senator whose
speech was far and away the most ex-
haustive legal argument heard on that
occasion, memorable for the number
and ability of those participating, and,
| furthermore, it was delivered under
| depressing circumstances, for, from
start to finish, it was known he was
! leading an absolutely forlorn hope.
At no time had Corbett the slightest
chance to win. The old millionaire
was personally unpopular with sena-
tors and, although no aspersions were
cast upon his character in the adverse
report, there was very general sus-
piciOn, amounting almost to a cOnvic-
ton with some, that Corbett, through
the lavish use of money, had prevent
ed the organization of the legislature,
having had a previous understanding
with the Oregon governor, and thus
defeated the return Of Mitchell, the
popular favorite and caucus nominee
of his party.
While we think Corbett's case was
stronger than is Quay's from a legal
standpoint, we still adhere to the be-
lief that Quay will be seated if he
makes the fight. POlitico-judicial
bodies are not apt to have qualms
over matter of presidents. What
ever may be thought of Quay and his
alleged methods on the outside, he is
a great favorite in the senate. He is
without an enemy there, and many of
his political opponents would be glad
of. chance to do him good turn,
and we shall be surprised if some Of
them do not find a way to do it if
his right to a seat comes before the
senate for determination.
In the article of the Democrat re-
ferred to there is an error in the
statement that The senate previously
refused to seat Du Pont of Delaware
who had been appointed by the gov
, ernor of that state after the legisla-
, ture had failed to elect" Du Pont
was not appointed by the governor.
: He claimed an election by the legis-
J lature under the following circum-
: stances: At joint convention Of the
two houses of the legislature of Del
aware, May 8, 1895, Is votes were cast
for Du Pont and 10 votes for other can
f didates. One of the votes cast for other
| candidates was the vote of the acting
= governor, William I. Watson, who
. had succeeded TO the executive chair
= on the death OF the governor. Watson
e was a senator and speaker Of the sen
. ate at the time OF the governors
/ death, and in that contingency, by vir
e tue of provision of the Delaware con
: stitution, the speaker Of the senate
q shall exercise the office until a gov
: ernor elected by the people shall b.
S duly qualified"