Wheeling Sunday register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1882-1934, 1899-12-17

Contention.
WASHINGTON, December 16.-An
investigation of the right of former
Senator Quay, of Pennsylvania, to a
seat in the Senate by appointment OF
the Governor, was begun to-day by the
Senate committee on privileges and
elections. The hearing to-day was
purely legal argument on the right
of the governor to make the appoint
ment under the circumstances which
arose in the case of Mr.. Quay-a ques-
ton which has been repeatedly thresh-
ed over by the Senate in other cases.
Hon. John P. Elkin, attorney general
of Pennsylvania, stated that he would
address the committee on behalf of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. For
mer Senator Edmunds announced that
he would appear for those who remon-
strated against the seating of Mr.. Quay
ton L. Carson and George Wharton
Pepper.
w. J. Brennan, an attorney of Pitts
burg, announced his appearance for the
Democratic members of the Pennsyl-
vania Legislature, and that he had as
ISOLATED with him James A. Stranahan.
In the course of his opening argu-
ment, Mr.. Elkin contended that SOW
ereign State was at all times entitled
to full representation in the Senate, ac-
cording to the spirit and letter of the
Constitution. The intention of the
trainers of the Constitution was to
keep the representation of each State
complete, and he maintained that the
governor having authority to appoint
a Senator to fill vacancy caused by
death, resignation, disqualification or
expulsion, had also full po Ter to ap-
point in the eve.1t the Legislature failed
of it's duty to elect. He held that the
failure of the legislature
To Perform It's Duty
ought not and could not operate to the
States disadvantage in the Senate.
Attorney General Elkin was followed
by Hampton L. Carson. AS he was
about to begin his argument, Senator
Penrose. of Pennsylvania, interrupted
to inquire: "Do you not appear here as
the paid attorney of John Wanamak-
err"
Mr.. Carson replied that he did not
appear in the pay of Mr.. Wanamaker
or in that of anybody else.
Former Senator Edmunds then seiz-
ed the opportunity to disclaim for him
self any connection with Mr.. Wanna
maker in the case.
Mr.. Carson presented an elaborate
legal and constitutional argument
against the seating of Mr.. Quay.
He maintained it was important that
each States representation should be
kept full, but he regarded it as equally
important that the Senators from the
several States should be selected prop
erly and in accordance with the con-
stitution. He doubted the desirability
of according to the State executive such
authority as was exercised by the Gov
ernor of pennsylvania in this case to
appoint anybody to the Senate whom
he might choose. He urged the COM
mittee and the Senate in considering
the case in hand. to follow the we'll
established presidents of the Senate
in not recognizing the right of the
Governor to appoint where an oppor-
tunity
Had Been Afforded
the legislature to elect which it had
not embraced.
Mr.. Carson concluded his argument
with the declaration that the leglsla-
ture of Pennsylvania had actually been
prevented from performing its duty OF
electing a Senator by the Governor of
the State and it was the first time in
the history of Pennsylvania that the
power of the executive had been exer-
cised in that manner.
Former Senator Edmunds followed
Mr.. Carson celebrating some OF
the legal and constitutional points
made by his colleague. He declared
that the authority to make appoint
ments was constantly being trenched
upon by the executive power, not only
the States but of the nation itself.
The President was exercising such
power by making recess appointments
of men who previously had been re-
iected by the Senate. This, he regarded
as dangerous and urged the Senate 10
take a firm stand against such usurp-
alton of power as protection to itself.
Mr.. Edmunds maintained that the
vacancy had having occurred during
the legislature and that after the vacan-
cy had occurred the legislature had en-
dedVQTSQ Out ldli6U 10 SICCt, tAC SONCi :
nor was barred from exercising his
constitutional right to appoint He
contended that the case of Mr.. Quay
did not fall within the authority con-
ferred upon the Governor
to Fill Vacancy
in the States representation in the
Senate.
Attorney General Elkin closed the
hearing with an argument in rebuttal
of the statements and arguments adj
vanced by Mr.. Edmunds and Mr.. Car
son.
In conclusion, Mr.. Elkin held that the
/ Judgment of the Governor as TO the
necessity for calling an extra session of
the legislature, which had failed to
elect a Senator was final and conclus-
i've and that he, therefore, had full
authority to exercise his constitutional
right to appoint, in order that the
States representation should be COM
plete.