Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1899-12-02
for Senators and members Of the House

for Senators and members Of the House
CT Representatives.
The first case in which this question
arose was in the House CT Representa-
tives in 1924, and that case is exactly
similar to the one under discussion. Mr..
Bailey was a citizen and resident or
Massachusetts, He was appointed as
chief clerk in The Office CT the Secretary
Of State at Washington, and removed
to hotel there. 1t wais net claimed
that he ever ATTEMPTED to exercise the
rights of a citizen at Washington. On
the contrary, Mr.. John @. Adams, at
that time Secretary of Ssai.e. testified
that he always understood that Mr..
Bailey considered Massachusetts, as his
home, and that his residence in Wash
ington was only temporary Under the
impression that he retained his citizen
ship in Massachusetts,, Mr.. Bailey be-
came a candidate for Congress at his
nome there and was elected. The
question of his eligibility was raised II
the House on the ground that while a
citizen, he was not an inilabitant or
Massachusetts,, but was an inhabitant
of the District of Columbia, where he
temporarily resided. The committee
to whom the case was referred made an
exhaustive report, going into an ex-
PLANTATION of the reasons why the
trainers of the constitution used the
word ''inhabitant" instead o. citizen or
resident in fixing the qualification CT
Senators and Representatives, and
showed that one of their objects was
to prevent the election of men who by
reason of living away from constitu-
encies were net in that touch with the
wishes and sentiments Of the peoplt
SO necessary in representative, and
that especially should Office holders
living at the seat CT the national adj
ministration be debarred from election
as a representative of a State in either
the House or the Senate. In short, had
the report been made on Mt. Scots
case it would not have fit more pre-
cisely every detail that arises under
the objection. The report rejected Mr..
Bailey, and was adopted by an over
whelming majority, such able constitu-
tional lawyers as Webster and Tucker,
OF Virginia, supporting it.
The second case was decided by the
Senate and is the converse of the
House case Adelbert Ames was a cit
construction period, he was appointed
provisional governor OF Mississippi by
the President. While acting as such,
ne was elected to the United States
Senate by the reconstruction Legisla-
ture. The question Of his eligibility
was raised on the ground that he was
not a citizen Of Mississippi, but a citi-
zen of Massachusetts. The Senate held
that though he was citizen OF Massa
chusetts, he was an inhabitant of Miss
issippi by reason of his residence there,
and therefore was eligible to a seat in
the Senate from that State.
These points and the facts connected
with them make up a strong case
against Mr.. SCOTS admission.
If the constitution, with the interpre-
tation heretofore given it by both
branches of Congress, is to have any
weight in shaping the conclusion of the
Senate, he will not get a seat in that
body.
If the constitution of West Virginia
can impose any obligation on the Leg
islature to purge itself of fen who have
no legal right to participate in its func-
tons, and the Senate will take cog
nizance of that fact, as it did in the
Dupont case, it will refuse to admit
him.
II the denial of the right of legally
elected members to have any vote in
the deliberations of the Legislature inn
pairs an election where that vote was
material to such eletion, he will not be
seated.
If coercion and threats of violence,
eft of toh 1ich
ed over one branch Of the Legislature
by the State administration and the
other branch, can ever vitiate an cleo
ton then he will not be seated.
II the constitution and the law and
the presidents heretofore observed by
the Senate have any weight whatever in
influencing the votes of Republican
Senators, then Mr.. Scott will be re-
jected.
But Notwithstanding the very strong
case made against him-a case which
would be fatal to the admission Of any
Democrat from any State in the Union
Mr.. Scott has complacently assured
the public from time to time that there
was absolutely no doubt but that he
would be seated. He has felt assured
from the beginning, that the constitu-
ton and the laws and all presidents
would be overridden to give him q
place in the Senate. But he may be
mistaken In this. The assurance from
which his complacency proceeds. may
arise from either one or two causes.
1t may be ignorance, or it may be from
mistaken notion on his part of the
kind of men who compose to some
extent the membership OF the Senate.
From the staggering insolence of his
newly acquired wealth, Mr. Scott has
probably not had opportunity to be-
come intimately acquainted with a
number OF Senators on the Republic
can side of the Senate who put the
man before the dollar and the law and
constitution before craftsmanship. In
his connection with the Republican
politics of West Virginia he has prob
ably found that many political favors
of various kinds are not the least Of
which has been a pretended election
to the United States Senate; and with
his experience in that kind of politics
he would be enabled, with the SPLEEN
did effrontery of his nature, to look
even the Almighty in the face and pro-
pose to purchase his good will and ia
vor in any political case in which he
has an interest. But we hope he may
be mistaken in his conception of even
Republican Senators. We hope there
may be some men and lawyers among
them who have integrity and capacity
RI rico abova tho r,ifiFf,1 ohio ~ao4o,. of