Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1900-01-12

~ KZ<-<@%E
taken by the remonstrants. III the
Caldwell = 8 from Kansas, there WA
no question OF fraud upon the part Of
the legislators themselves. The pro
ceilings were entirely regular and there
was no dispute that Mr.. Caldwell re-
ceived a SUFFICIENT number OF unqueS-
tionably legal votes to elect him. But
he had made q corrupt agreement with
a rival candidate and the committee
unanimously held that this agreement
being against public policy vitiated the
election. In this cas- it is charged
that the agreement was forced by on
spiracy, fraud and threats. 1t is more
clearly against public policy than was
the agreement in the Caldwell case. In
the Caldwell case, the defense took the
position that the transaction with Car
ney was a private affair between citi-
zens and was not denounced as illegal
by any statute, State or Federal. and
that the Senate had no legal right to
inquire about it.
Senator Morten, of Indiana, said:
IF the Senate cannot inquire into
the circumstances attending the cleo
ton OF its members, whether such
election was procured by bribery, cor
ruption or other matter impairing the
freedom of elections. such inquiry can
not be made anywhere The
Constitution provides that each
House shall be the judge OF the cleo
tons, returns, and Qualifications OF
its members 1t may inquire in re-
gard to his qualifications whether the
member was thirty years old, had
been nine years a citizen of the United
States, and was an inhabitant of the
State; whether the returns of the e,ec-
ton are in due form and show an cleo
ton by the lawful legislature of the
State, certified as required by law;
whether the election was conducted
according to law and was free, Or at
tended by circumstances that would
make it invalid, such as bribery, fraud,
or intimidation. Whether
impairs the freedom Of elections is il
legal, and against public policy, and
makes the election void. Intimidation
ard bribery are not the only practices
which impair the freedom of elections.
= = 1t has never been held in
England that the effect Of bribery in
making an election void depended upon
the existence Of a statute Furnishing it
as an offense." March II, 1879
Senator Allcorn said:
The election of Senator's by the
States is not the exercise CT a right abb
solute. Determining the time, manner
and place of the election of Senator'S is,
it is true, conceded to the State, but
the concession is made subject to a re-
seryation to the United States of a SUI
,>o~tN, riri - r'nht 10 cA hohind tho
action of the States as to the time and
manner. The creation of Senators be-
ing subject in the first place to the d.
rection OF the United States and in the
next place to the ratification of the
Senate it is in a certain degree made
by the Constitution a concurrent pow
err" Especial sessions Senate, 1878,
page 75.).
Senator Salisbury said:
What is meant by the authority con-
ferred upon each House, of Congress to
judge of the election of its members?
1t is something distinct from judging
of their qualifications and the returns
of elections. It must mean that you
may look into the election and judge
not only whether it took place at the
proper time and at the proper place,
and was the proper legislative body
(for these facts must appear on the
face of the r%eturns), but also to see If
the election was conducted in the
proper manner; that is, whether it was
tho free expression of the legislative
will uncontrolled and undeterred by
force or fraud" page 90.)
Senator Pratt contended against
Caldwell on the ground of the bribery
agreement. He said: Called upon to
pronounce whether that election was
valid car l say that such means were
honest and proper, and not calculated
to interfere with that freedom of cleo
ton which. is the, very soul of our po-
litical system? = q = . Fraud corrupts
a contract and makes it void. Why
should it not taint an election? No
verdict could stand for a moment in a
court of justice brought about by such
influence as is proved here" page
95.)
Senator Thurman said:
mfr Caldwell is not the only Senator
on trial to-day-the whole Senate is
on trial. The question is not simply
whether Caldwell is guilty. but wheth-
er the Senate has the intelligence and
irmness to pronounce him guilty, if
guilty he be-" Page 1857
Nathan b. Scott, mt the time of his
alleged election, was not an inhnbi-
tant of the state of West Virginia;
For a great many purposes the terms
Inhabitants" and residents" are syn
onymous. A vast number of legal de-
cisions can be quoted to this effect.
There is no question that Mr.. Scott had
not intended to abandon his residence
in the State of West Virginia. But a
very different meaning vas intended
to the word 'inhabitant,' as used in
the Constitution. as is shown by the
fact that the word resident was
stricken out and the word 'inhabitant"
substituted. Such constitutional law
yers as Daniel Webster, Judge Allen,
of Massachusetts, Judge McLain, Of
Ohio; Foote, of New York, and Tucker,
of Virginia, all agreed in the Bailey
case that a man holding Office in Wash
ington, while a citizen of the State
from which he was appointed lost his
i~nhabitancy. The authorities upon the
question Of voting or of jurisdiction Of
courts are not in point. There is no
authority which holds that a person
residing in Washington holding an APP
pointive Office is an inhabitantof the
State from which he came. All the
authorities hold the other way The
continuation that 4htc uouId da-~;ro