Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1899-01-26


son and Call, in Florida, to the effect
that a majority of the quorum will
elect; but as a matter of fact, Sena-
tor Call received 55 votes, in a Legis-
lature composed of 101 members elect
ed, and consequently had a majority
of the members elected. The same
point as to a majority IN the quorum
in an adjourned meeting of a joint
convention, was passed upon in the
Lampham and Miller cases from New
York. But Lampham and Miller, both
received a majority of all the members
elected. The real point decided in
both these cases is that at adjourned
need not be a quorum of both houses
present, and that a quorum OF the
joint convention is sufficient to pro-
coed to the election of a United States
Senator. The last case upon the sub
ject was that of Blackburn and Hunt
er, in Kentucky. Three Democratic
members of the Kentucky Legislature
died which gave DR.. Hunter a MAORI
ty of the living members of the Legis-
lature. He did not receive, however, a
majority of the members elected. The
case was heard before the Court of
Appeals of Kentucky, and was decided
against DR.. Hunter.
CDR. Hunter went to Washington and
after remaining there several weeks
and finding that the Senate would not
seat him, he was provided for by the
administration with a foreign post.
There is not a case ever decided by the
United States Senate where a man was
seated who failed to receive a majority
of all the members elected to the Leg
islature.
"To hold otherwise would be to de-
prive a portion of the State of the right
to a voice in the choice of a United
States Senator. In the present in
stance there are two Senators who lille
gally occupy seats, and under the COM
promise agreement there was n Sen
atof and one Representative who were
not allowed to vote.
This disfranchised three counties
in one Senatorial district and one u
ty in the House. If it is competent to
| say that one out of fifty-four counties
is not entitled to a voice in the selec-
ton of a Senator, it is equally compe-
tent for the same power to decree that
iifty-three counties out of fifty-four
shall have no voice and elect the Sen
ator by the vote Of the one remaining
county. The fact is that fifty-four
counties have a fundamental constitu-
tional right to participate in the cleo
ton of a Senator, and that right can-
not be surrendered even by the citi-
zens of the county, much less by any
compromise or legislative agreement.
THE election of Mr.. Scott under the
arrangement made and with these
counties disfranchised, could not have
been brought about by the votes of
two Senators, who had by accepting
commissions in the army vacated their
Senatorial offices. The law upon this
question is so plain that a careful
search of all the commentaries upon
the common law, all the statutes and
re-decisiOns of tie courts of last re-
| -anE -, Tho JToitn1 C+a+0- onJ tIo Yrn
ceedings of all legislative bodies in this
country has not brought about a pre-
cedent which these men can rely upon
to establish their right to a place in
the Senate of West Virginia. The
question has been decided over and
over again, and always against the
rights of the officer to hold his seat.
Under a similar clause in the constitu-
ton, except that it is even less ex-
Congress of the United States has sew
eral times been called upon to pass up
on these questions. The first case was
as early as 1903. and was particularly
hard in it's results.
John P. Vanness. a Republican
from New York. accepted the position,
which was merely honorary, of major
in the local militia in the District of
Columbia. Congress decided unani-
mously that he had, by reaso of this
military and merely honorary posi-
| ton, without any emoluments attach
| ed to it, forfeited his right to a seat
in the House of Representatives. He
offered to resign, but this was not al
lowed for the reason that the seat in
| Congress was vacated i%nstanter upon
his acceptance of the military Office.
This was true of the Yell, Blair,
and Sehenk cases. The United States
Senate passed upon the same question
| in the case of Lane. Of Kansas. He
was eligible when his credentials
were presented. but during this
interim, he accepted a position as
brigadier general and resigned it.
The Senate held that this would
vacate his seat, but that the appoint
ment was illegal, because not author
lied by law.
''TheSe considerations make il