Evening star., 1900-01-27
THEPROTEST AGAINST SCOTT
Senate Elections Committee Takes Up the
West Virginia Case.
presentation Of Arguments of Couu-
sel-Why the Election is
Contested.

The Senate committee on privileges and
elections met today to hear arguments by
counsel IN the case of the remonstrance
against permitting Nathan B. Scott Of
west Virginia to occupy his seat in the
Senate
The principal objection to Mr. Scott was
pased upon the contention that he received
only 4S votes. or one less than a majority
and that he secured his election by caus-
ing the suspension of two members of the
legislature who were afterward given seats.
thus reducing the membership from % 20
a5.
Much was also made of the circumstances
that two of the members of the state sem
ate, by which he was elected, were officers
in the volunteer army of the United States
during the Spanish war. These senators
We're named GetZendanner and Pierson.
Ihey were hold-overs, having been elected
In 1876. Both accepted commissions in the
I'd West Virginia Regiment in the summer
of 1888. and Notwithstanding this circum-
stance entered the legislature in the winter
of 1S9S-99. They voted for Mr.. Scott and
with their votes he received As votes,
majority of one of the 95 members of the
joint assembly then occupying seats. The
protestants claimed that by accepting COM
missions in the army Getzendanner and
Pierson, respectively, vacated their Office
as members of the state senate. Without
their votes Mr.. Scott would have had 46
votes.
The friends of Mr.. Scott contest these
points, urging cause for the suspension of
the two members, and also showing that
Messrs Getzendanner and Pierson had re-
signed their offices in the army before cast
ing their votes for Mr.. Scott for senator.
Today's session was devoted entirely to
hearing the arguments of counsel upon the
merits of the case, it having not yet been
decided whether evidence should be taken
Argument of Judge Holt.
Judge John H. Holt of West Virginia. He
urged that Getzendanner and Pierson were
absolutely prohibited by the West Virginia
constitution from the acceptance of offices
under the federal government They had
the choice of retaining their civil offices or
accepting the positions in the military SER
vice; they had accepted the latter position,
and thus, ipso facto, they had vacated their
state offices. True the state legislature had
pronounced to the contrary; but, notwith-
standing this fact, he contended that it was
the duty of the United States Senate to go
behind the action of the state body.
AS to the agreement under which the
election was effected he considered it
mere private understanding, and that be-
cause it was such and not an official func-
ton the election was vitated. He urged
that with the seats of the two state sena-
tors once vacated there was way by
which they could again. take their seats,
except by reelection, which was not resort
ed to in either Of these instances.
The agreement referred to was that by
which the two houses of the legislature ar
ranged to meet in joint assembly for the
election. of senator and disregard the con-
test over seats, allowing neither contestants
nor contestees to vote. This agreement,
Mr.. Holt declared, was corrupt, a violation
of law. contrary to public policy, a pitiable
meddling with high function. 1t amounted
to disfranchisement of two democratic
members. who were afterward seated, one
in the senate and the other in the house
Thus the vote of the Joint assembly was
duced from 81 to 3d. and making As ma
jority. The agreement was among mem
bers OF the legislature, and was contrary to
the law and to public policy as well.
Right to Go Behind Returns.
Mr.. Holt devoted much of his time to
consideration of the right of the Senate of
the United States to Investigate the quali-
fications of members of the state senate,
holding that as a matter of self-preserva-
ton the federal Senate was bound to go
behind the decisions of a state body The
qualifications of its own members were in
volved. and the federal Senate could not af-
ford to say that it would be bound by the
conclusions of a state legislature however
foolish they might be.
Argument of Frank L. WeIIes.
Mr.. Frank L. Welles, also of counsel for
the protestants, presented the reasons why
the committee should take further evidence
anomalous fact that while it is claimed that
Scott had been elected by As votes. a ma
1ority, the protestants numbered forty-nfue
members of the legislature.
He contended that the contests for seats
in the West Virginia legislature were the
results of conspiracy on the part of re-
publican managers to insure the election
of Scott, and that in some cases the con-
tests were insisted upon even where the
contestants did not want to enter into
them. BloodShed was even threatened by
republican state officers.
Mr.. Welles urged the committee in view
OF these contentious to take testimony and
allow the protestants to prove these facts.
He said that conditions in West Virginia
were as bad as had ever been known in
the south in the days of reconstruction
Mr.. Wells said that long investigation
would not be necessary. nor would many
witnesses be called Among others they
would like to have the governor of the
state called to testify to his threat to
call out the militia to force the recogni-
ton of rump legislature.