Wheeling Sunday register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1882-1934, 1900-01-28

WASHINGTON, January 27.-The
Senate Committee on Privileges and
Elections met to-day to hear argu-
ments by counsel in the case of re-
monstrance against permitting Hon
Nathan B. Scott. of West Virginia, to
occupy his seat in the Senate.
The principal objection to Mr.. Scott
urged by the protestants was based
upon the contention that he received
only As votes, or one less than a ma
jority, and that he secured his cleo
ton by causing the suspension of two
members of the Legislature, who were
afterward given seats, thus reducing
the membership from 81 to 95.
Much was also made of the cir
cumstances that two of the members
of the State Senate, by which he was
elected, were officers in the volunteer
army of the United States during the
Spanish war. These senators were
named Getzendanner and Person
They were hold-overs, having been
elected in 1896. Both accepted COM
missions in the Second West Virginia
regiment in the summer of 1898, and
Notwithstanding this circumstance, en-
tered the Legislature in the winter OF
1898-99. They voted for Mr.. Scott, and
with their votes he received 4S votes,
or a majority of one of the 95 mem
bers of the Joint Assembly then oc-
cupying seats.
The Protestants Claimed
That by accepting commissions in the
army Getzendanner and Pierson va
Gated 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 aus for the sus-
pension of the two members, and also
that Messrs. Getzendanner
and Pierson had resigned their offices
Ill CuO dIuy UOlOlS CdOLlnS GlCl1 tOOCO
for Mr.. Scott for senator.
To-day's session was devoted entire
ly to hearing the arguments of coun-
sci upon the merits of the case, it
having not yet been decided whether
evidence should be taken.
The first speaker for the protest
ants was Judge John H. Holt, of West
Virginia. He argued that Getzendan-
ner and Pierson were absolutely pro-
hibited by the West Virginia consti-
tuition 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 service; they had accept
ed the latter position, and thus, ipso
facto, they had vacated their State Of
fees. True, the State Legislature had
pronounced to the contrary; but not
withstanding this fact, he c~ontended
that it was
The Duty of the United States
To go behind the action Of the State
body. AS to the agreement under
which the election was effected, he
considered it a mere private under
standing, and because it was such and
not an official function, the election
was Initiated. He urged that with the
seats of the two State senators va
Gated there was no way by which they
could again take their seats except by
reelection, which was not resorted to
in either of these instances.
The agreement referred to was that
by which the two houses of the Legis-
lature arranged to meet in joint as
sembly for the election of a senator
and disregard the contests over seats,
allowing neither contestants o con
testees to vote. This agreement, Mr..
Holt declared, was corrupt, a violation
of law, contrary to public policy-a
pitiable meddling with a high func-
ton. 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
reduced from 81 to 95, and making As
a majority. The agreement was among
members of the Legislature and was
contrary to the law and to public poll
icy as well.
Mr.. Holt devoted much of his time
to consideration of the right of the
Senate of the United States to
Investigate The Qualifications
OF members of the State Senate, hold
ing 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 involved and the Fed
eral Senate could not afford to say
that it would be bound by the conclus-
ions of a State Legislature, however
foolish they might be.
Mr.. Frank L. Welles, also of coun-
sci for the p~rotestants. presented the
reasons why the committee should
take further evidence in the case He
called attention to the anomalous fact
that while it was claimed that Scott
had been elected by As votes. a major
Iity, the pr~otestants numbered 40
members of the Legislature.
He c~ontended that the contests for
- - II w. yys--s-I- T-s-s---