The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-04-28

ings of State Legislatures in connection
with the election Of United States Sena-
| tors. He was willing. therefore, to go on
! with the investigation in the Scott case,
| if Democratic Senators were serious in
the demand; but he rave warning that.
| in the next session J. c. s. Blackburn
of Kentucky would be presenting his ere
| dentials. and (if the decision in the Turpie
j case we're overruled) the question would
| be Investigated whether Kentucky had a
| Legislature competent TO elect a United
| States Senator. TIE Senate would be
called upon to go into the question wheth-
er it would reverse the action of the
Kentucky Legislature as 10 its member
ship. The agreement complained of he
tween members of the West Virginia Leg
islature, he said, had been an amicable
and honorable one. without which there
would have been chaos and, perhaps, civil
war In that State.
Nj. Bacon agreed In the legal PROPOSE
ton that the Senate of the United States
could not enter into details of the action
of State Legislature. 1t was the only
safe position to take; and therefore, he
would vote against the motion TO recon-
nit
Mr.. Teller gave his assent to The legal
proposition, in the Turpie case, that, as
to the right of membNs of the joint as
sembly to vote, the Senate was bound by
the judgment of that body. That did not
exclude the right to enquire whether cny
of the votes had been cast fraudulently.
Mr. McComas. in charge of the report,
defended the course of the committee,
claiming that the allegations made against
the election of Mr.. Scott were not of
sufficient weight or Importance TO justify
an investigation. which would be expensive
and of no benefit. At the close OF the
discussion the motion TO recommit was
rejected, and the resolution declaring Mr..
Scott entitled to the seat was agreed to-
yeas, So; nays, 3-Messrs. Morgan, Pettus,
and Turner
Mr.. Chandler gave notice that on We'd
nesday next he would call up the Clark
election case and would ask for its con-
tinuous consideration, If no Senator de-
sired to speak upon 1t, he would forego
his own right to do So and let the vote
be taken on the committees report.
Mr.. Allen demonstrated against action
on the report without Senators having
had an opportunity to read the testimony.
He had every confidence IN the committee
but he preferred TO read the evidence and
TO examine the question of law for him
self. He would like to see the case taken
up at an early date and determined; but
he wanted that done after Senators had
had reasonable opportunity to read and
digest the evidence.
After some further colloquy, Senator
Chandler said that he withdrew the state
ment that he would ask continuous con-
sideration of the report and said that he
would let the matter be considered ac-
cording to what was fair and right. He
only gave notice then that he would call
up the case on Wednesday next, and then
the Senate would determine what time
would be fair and reasonable for discus
sion.
The Alaska bill was then taken up. Mr.
Rawlins made a legal argument against
the proposition that a mining location by
an alien cannot be invalldated through
relocation by citizen OF the United States.
His views were contradicted by Senators
Teller and Stewart
No action was taken on the bill, and af-
ter an executive session the Senate ad-
iourned until today.