The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1899-05-01

between Reads resignation and Johns
appointment
The next casa in point Of time came
from Connecticut. James Lanuau. sen
asor from that state. whose time expired
March 4. lsc5. produced the mex, day ere
dentials Of appointment by tho governor
TO Ill the vacancy. The legislature OF
Connecticut was not then In scsaion, and
II did not convene until the following day.
Lanman was refused a seat by . vote Of
% 70 IS
Theee two cases were decided upon the
principle that the legislature. by making
elections itself shall provide for all va
cancies which must occur at stated and
known periods. and that the expiration az
q regular term OF service II not such n
contingency as Is embraced in the clause
Of the constitution which says and, IL
vacancies happen Gin the stuAte1 by raR
ignation or otherwise during the recess Of
the legislature Of any state, the executive
thereof may make temporary appoint
ments until the next meeting OF the iegis-
lature, which shall then ALI such va
cancies." asfs. - st~
These preeedents. together. with the Lea
Mantle case. were relied upon BY The COM
mittse on privileges and elections in re-
porting against the seating Of Henry w.
Corbett. Of Oregon. In 1893. The DISPOSE
ton OF the Mantle case carried with II two
others lit was decided In 1885, The legis-
la,ures Of Montana, Washington and Wy
omlng were in session. and all three at
tempted to elect senator's. but did not suc-
coed. The governors Of these states made
appointments to fill the vacancies at the
beginning of fun term, but the United
States senate refused to seat Mantle by
vote of & to -. The Washington casr.
where John b. Allen was the appoinses-
Immediately was disposed OF in The same
way aud by exactly the same vote, ana
the Wyoming appointee. Beckwith. who
next appeared TO qualify, rendered his
resignation 10 the governor OF his state
Next came the more recent Oregon case.
where tbs legislature made no attempt
to elect = senator. or TO transact Any other
legislative business, because OF clash
In the organization. The governor APP
pointed Henry w. Corbetl The case Was
deliberately argued to the senate. and II
is significant that those members OF the
committee on privileges and elections who
favored seating tho appointee cited no
precedent to justify their report On Feb
raary =. 1888. tbs senate. by he decisive
vote OF 50 to ts, declared that Mr.. Cor
bett was not entitled to n seat.
II Is true that each United States SEN
ate is a Law unto itself. 20 far as the de-
elsions respecting the qualifications o< it's
membership are concerned. II Is equally
true that In questions OF minor parliament
iary practice the senate revesses itself
with somewhat amusing frequency. But
* is a much graver question that In in-
VOWED in the Quay case. and one in which.
as has been shown. there runs an unnxoken
iisae of adverse precedent
To overtura this precedent in favor Of
Mr. Quay too would be 10 admit three
other members To seats in The senate. for
the governors 81 California, Delaware and
Utah where the circumstances are sdenii-
cal with those obtaining In Pennsylvania.
will make appointments. aid the senate
naturally would he compelled to admit
these apg>oGntses to sexts- This ecnSfn-
gesscy could DOT aasni, any material aaes-
tior of politics. for Delaware has d Demo
cratic governor. tie appointed from Utah
would nj least be silver man. IL nos a
IterfssfEFA1 s&f4S%s}Ss @s$1 s4@@4sotaAa s$&s3
PENNSYLVANIA have Republican governors.
The fact tina. there are three other cases
dependent Upon The decision ia hss own
case. however. would Do of aid 10 Mr.
QUAY for II would add substantially 10 hsz
p1wersus personal snnueBcs In aeserrain-
ing the deciding vote.
,Tkera haze BEEN n .aassrf 81 Instances
IL which members az the United States
se1ats hare held asass uadissgraed ny vtr-
iue Of appointment ny the governor 81
sseir states. Bus 3, has been because the
legislature conssiru,ionafsy entitled to
eiscs them had not been In session UP TO
TIE :Iras the senatorial term 10 which
they WIRE appointed began. or because no
ronfess was brought against them. and
therefore the senate 1was not called uson
20 act. In the ias;erVnssAnce toe principle
"a precisely the same as when a parIsa-
rseasa-y body Goes business without 4
quorum no raE call having shown the ALB
seree 90 sneA quorum.
Csae ct the peculiar features os the Quay
case. bat one which would have no bsar-