The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1899-12-17
QUAY'S FIGHT
IN THE SENATE
Pennsylvanian's Case Is
Taken Up.
ARGUMENTS IN COMMITTEE
EDMUNDS AND CARSON TALK
AGAINST HIM.
One Side Advocating, the Other
Opposing, the Right of the Gov
ernor to Fill the
Vacancy.
ARGUMENTS IN COMMITTED
EDMUNDS AND CARSON TALL
AGAINST HIM.
Special Dispatch to The Call.

WASHINGTON, Dec. l6.-An investiga-
ton OF the right OF former Senator Quay
of PENNSYLVANIA 10 a seat in the Senate
by appointment of the Governor of Penn
sylvania was begun to-day by the Sem
ate Committee on Privileges and Elec-
tons. The session to-day was devoted
purely TO a legal argument on the right
of the Governor to make the appoint
ment in the circumstances which arose in
the case of QUay-a question which re-
peatedly has been thrashed over by the
Senate in other cases.
Hon. John p. Elkin, Attorney General OF
Pennsylvania, said he would address the
committee on behalf Of the common
wealth OF Pennsylvania. Former Senator
Edmunds announced that he would APP
pear for those who demonstrated against
the seating of Quay, and that he had rs
coadjutors Hampton L. Carson and
George w. Pepper. W. J. Brennan. an at
torney OF Plttsburg, announced his ap-
pearance for the Democratic members OF
the Pennsylvania Legislature, and said
he had associated with him James A.
Stranahan.
In the course OF his opening argument
Elkin contended that a sovereign
State was at all times entitled TO
full representation in the Senate.
Of the constitution. The intention
OF the trainers OF the constitution was to
Keep the representation OF eacn state
complete, and he maintained that the
Governor. having authority To appoint
Senator TO NIL vacancy caused by
death. resignation, disqualification or ex
pulsion. had also full power to appoint
in the event that the Legislature failed in
its duty 10 elect. He held that the failure
of the Legislature 10 perform its duty
ought not and could not operate 10 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 10 inquire:
DO you not appear here as the paid at
torney of John Wanamaker?"
Carson replied that he did not appear in
the pay Of Wanamaker or in that of any
body else.
Former Senator Edmunds then seized
the opportunity 10 disclaim for himself
any connection with Wanamaker in the
case.
Carson presented an elaborate legal and
constitutional argument against the seat
ing Of Quay. He maintained 1t was i'm
portant that each States representation
should be kept full. but he regarded ii as
equally important that the Senators from
the several States should be selected
properly and In accordance with the con-
Stitution. He doubted the desira blity of
according TO the State executive such
authority as was exercised by the Gov
ernor of Pennsylvania in this case. TO ap-
point anybody 20 the Senate whom he
might choose. He urged the committee
and the Senate, in considering the case in
hand, TO follow the welI-established pre-
Cedents of the Senate In not recognizing
the right of the Governor 10 appoint
where an opportunity lad been afforded
the Legislature 20 elect, which IL did not
embrace.
Carson concluded his argument with the
declaration that the Legislature of Penn
sylvania had actually been prevented per-
forming its duties of electing a Senator by
the Governor Of the State, and that IL was
the first ume in the history of Pennsyl-
vania tnat the power OF the executive had
been exercised In that manner.
Former Senator Edmunds followed Car
son. celebrating some of the legal and
constitutional points made by his col
league. He declared the authority to
make appointments was constantly be-
ing intrenched upon by the executive
power not only Of the States. but of the
nation itself. The President was exercis-
ing such power by making recess appoint
jected by the Senate. This he regarded as
dangerous, and urged the Senate TO take
firm stand against such usurpation of
power as a protection to itself.
Edmunds maintained that, the vacancy
having occurred during the session OF the
Legislature and that after the vacancy
had occurred the Legislature had endeav-
ored but failed 10 elect. the Governor was
barred from exercising his constitutional
right 10 appoint. He contended that the
case of Quay did not fall within the
authority conferred upon a Governor to
fill vacancy in the States representa-
ton in the Senate.
Attorney General Elkin closed the hear
ing with an argument in rebuttal OF the
statements and arguments advanced by
Edmunds and Carson. In conclusion
Elkin held that the judgment OF the Gov
/ ernor as TO the calling Of an extra sas-
sion of the Legislature which had failed
sive and that he therefore had full
authority TO exercise his constitutional
right TO appoint, in order that the States
representation should be complete.