The San Francisco call., 1899-05-12

Each case has been decided upon the personal IN
terests and party considerations involved Or, more
accurately, practice in this regard will run Tor
number OF years until some case OF exceptional in
uence reverses it. and then that is taken as prece-
dent until another striking on the other side
comes up. Until 1926, for example the Senate gave
seats to all Senators appointed Mr.. Quay has been
But in that year the attention OF the Senate was
specially directed to the Lanman case and after an
exhaustive debate it was decided that he had been
improperly appointed"
1t is difficult to crowd more misrepresentation OF
fact into the same space, The first case was decided
in 1904 when several men who had been members OF
the Constitutional Convention were members OF the
Senate. The decision that when a Legislature
had been in session and had failed fill existing
vacancy in the Senate the Governor had jurisdic
ton and the seat must remain vacant until the Legis-
lature chose to fill it In 1925 the Lanman case was
decided the same way on the same grounds, and the
principle thus fixed has never been violated re-
versed by the Senate. 1t is that each case
has been decided upon the personal interests and
party considerations involved"
Senator Edmunds of Vermont, one of the great
lawyers OF the Senate, in discussing one of these
cases said: This question fairly debated when
the gentlemen on the other side were in majority
in this Chamber Without party division gentlemen
both sides voted according the light they had,
and not dividing party lines, settled this identical
question The Senate sitting upon such question
sits as judges The constitution says We are not
defining policies not setting up eXpediencles;
we not carrying party warfare We are sitting
the solemn judges sworn to try and determine the
election and qualifications OF gentleman who pre-
sents himself to be member OF this body. We have
come to decision, just the Supreme Court OF the
United States, sitting 200 feet from comes to a
decision a great variety OF cases, when the Judges
differ, five one way, four another. The decision Of
the court is announced. What would become of that
court il the next time similar question came up the
whole thing was opened again and the contest was
gone over repeatedly from year to year and time to
time in order to see which should get the ascendancy
upon all questions? Nothing would be settled and
the would be destroyed and justice, too for that
matter How is it different here? When have
come to a decision even in case of doubt, having
come to it fairly, not in a time OF party heat or by
party vote when we have come to a decision after
full deberation, which carries out confessedly the
objects OF the constitution should not stick to it?
From this and the rollcalls on the many cases de
cided 1t is plain that neither personal interests
party considerations have influenced the Senate.
Senators acting under oath and sitting as judges
would betray every obligation resting upon them ii
they let personal interests influence them in the de
cision OF constitutional question
That a party majority would not be and never has
been influenced by party considerations is evident
from the fact that already having majority in the
Senate there is no necessity violate the constitu-
ton for partisan advantage.
The San Francisco Bulletin, which supports the ap-
pointment OF Burns, says:
The rejection OF Corbett Of Oregon though in &C
cord with precedents, was largely influenced by the
fact that Senator Burrows OF Michigan had personal
reasons to desire that the precedent which Corbett
fell sacrifice to should be preserved Burrows was
candidate for reelection but the Governor OF Mich
gan was opposed to him. and had influence enough to
deadlock the Legislature II Corbett had been seated
on appointment by the Governor precedent would
have been established that would encourage the Gov
ernor to throw his influence against Burrows and
thereby secure to himself the appointment OF a
Senator"
1t would be hard to frame better statement OF the
constitutional for denying jurisdiction the
Governor after Legislature has failed to elect a
Senator. The Governor OF Michigan could dead
lock the Legislature and thereby secure to himself
the appointment OF a Senator! 1t is to prevent Just
that sort OF thing that the constitution provides And
i vacancies happen by resignation otherwise dur
ing recess of the Legislature OF any State, the
executive thereof may make temporary appointments
until the next meeting OF the legislature The Bull
letn makes Its statement to prove the contention that
the Corbett case went off on the personal inter
ests" OF Burrows, whereas the admission that Gov
ernor Pngree stood ready to deadlock the Legisla-
ture to secure to himself the right to elect Senator
is clear demonstration OF the wisdom OF the Senate
in adherng to the constitutional rule II it be de-
parted from, what Pingree stood ready to do in
Michigan will soon become the rule. Governors
having the disposition of State patronage easily
so it to tempt Legislatures not elect Sena-
tors from whom not much patronage can be had and
it is not improbability that very the Senate
would be filled by the creatures of executive power
an EXTRA SESSION OF CONGRESS-