The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-04-25

precedents established by the Dupont
Mantle. and Corbett cases. declared thai
those preeedents bind the Senate. and tha
on that ground alone Mr Quay should b'
denied a seat as had been done in the
cases Of the other claimants Mr. Lind
say argued that as the cases referred C
were authoritatiyalv settled by the Sen
ate and as an appeal had been refused
from one Of the decisions then rendered
even though that appeal had been properly
made. there was no way in which the find
inEs OF the Senate sitting as court ia
previous cases could be reversed in the
case Ct Mr.. Quay, which is an entirely
similar one.
Were it not for these precedents." he
declared Il should content myself today
with a quiet vote. ] do not maintain that
this Senate has not the right to reverse
any decision which it has heretofore made
but ! do maintain that those decisions
cannot be reversed simply because OF a
change in political conditions governing
the case. and former prCCCdcut- over
thrown by the establishment Of a new
precedent which is TO prevail until the po-
litical aspect of the Senate shall change.
Referring to the appointment clause OF
the Constitution. Mr. Lindsay declared
that the appointment Of Senators by the
State executive was provided for merely
TO arrange for the filling Of vacancies that
might be regarded as unexpected
Having stated his opinion Of the bearing
of precedents upon the present case. lie
referred to one after another OF the cases
which he thought went TO support these
precedents. He declared that II Mr. Quay
were seated and the Pennsylvania Legis-
lsture should fail to elect a Senator at its
next session, a precedent would have b-en
established whereby Mr.. Quay could he
appointed again and again as lorE as the
Legislature should fail TO elect
Mr.. Lindsay then took up the discussion
OF the meaning OF the clauses Of he Con-
stitution applying TO the case which he
discussed at length. concluding lis re-
marks with further reference 10 precedent.
Mr.. Chandler challenged certain Of Mr..
Lndssy's remarks relative TO one Of the
preceding contested election cases, in
which the Kentucky Senator criticized The
Committee on Privileges and Elections
OF which Mr.. Chandler is Chairman. fer
no thaying taken action in the case CT
Woods. the claimant for a seat in the
Senate from Kentucky After a further
discussion between Messrs Lindsay and
Chandler. MIR. Spoouer took the floor and
made q speech in favor Of the seating Of
Mr.. Quay.
MIR. SpoOHcr speaks.
The Wisconsin Senator referred to tie
statements that have been made By certain
Senators that the appointment clause"
of the Constitution is perfectly clear on
this point. and remarked that they paid a
very poor tribute to the able men who for
fifty years have debated this question and
have tried in every way TO reach a definite
settlement OF it. He then took I'D the sub
ject Of precedents. and after long LEGAL
discussion Of the principle applying to it,
stated that there was no court in the
country that had not again ana again re-
versed its decisions-that the Supreme
Court had done so. lie said that in courts
OF Law the arguments that were presented
were listened to. but that was zeGom done
in the Senate.
Mr.. SpOoner contcndcd that the doctrine
Of stare decisis was one based upon public
Interests and necessity as without it,
Infinite harm would come TO holders Of
vast property rights. j. was not SO how
ever. as to that class Of controversies OF
questions on which no general property
right rested. The Senate was a political
body. and. in discussing or acting On such
questions. il was not acting in the calm
atmosphere Of a court from which par
precedent made in the Corbott case was
right il should be adhered TO- not because
IL was made, but because il was right. ard
II II were wrong il should be abandoned
Lecause it was wrong
Mr.. Hale asked vhet her Mr.. Snoouer
thought il a good thing that great ques-
tion OF this kind should be re
peatedly coming up before the Sen
ate. Did he not think that for The
81 /
was better that there should be an end cf
such contentious And did be think that
Il it should happen that this contention
should be decided in favor Of Mr. QUAY ny
9 bare majority. that would se.tle the con
tcntion2
NO" Mr.. Snooner replied.
Then the Senator does not wish ID set
Ned. Mr.. Hale persisted.
Il did not say that said Mr.. Spoone-. }
Il ask the Senator" Mr Hale went IN.
'as a lawyer and a thoughtful man.
whether he does not think it better that /
In this body some time or other this quas- I
tion should be settled. so that Governors I
aud Legislatures shall know the line of I
action TO be Observed"
Mr. Spooner-The Senator from Maiae I
would consider IL eterually settled. I SUP /
pose. so long as it is settled in his way.
Mr.. Hale do not think so. u happens /
10 be fact that il always mas been settled /
in my way.
Mr.. Spooner-But. IL it had not been2
Mr Hale would have given 10 up.
Mr.. Spooner-I don't think so-uot un-
less the Senator changed his nature.
Glad Of a settlement.
Mr.. Spooner-I regret that the question
is here now but it is here. I shall be
be glad if the discussion Of il and the .
settlement OF it shall lead either 10 leg
islation or to constitutional amendment .
that VIII prevent such questions coming up /
hereafter.
Mr. Spooner insisted on the Observance /
of the spirit rather than Of the letter OF .
the constitutional provision as to 6iuns
vacancies. contendiuE thar the spirit OF IT. .
was that each State should always have Its .
Iull representation iu the Senate. and be .
laid stress on the fact thar although the .
appointment by the Governor is only %
continue until the meeting and orEauiza- .
don OF the Legislature the Senate had al .
ways construed that as meaning until the .
election by the Legislature or until its ad- .
Iournment
In conclusion he declared that neither
snmity. uupopularity nor anything what
-ver could induce bin TO vote 90 exclude .
man who came 20 the Senate with crC-
isntials which ho lN- Sroouer. feI- bound
10 accept: and therefore Le should vote
or Mt QUAY
Nj Stewart said that Dc had voted
,cainst Nr Corhc,t moi OF constitutional +.
grounds but because Nr C0rbr-f had not .
presented hiUser with Cie-r bands Ho
rad no doubt whatever of the right Of