The Delawarean., 1900-05-02
portunity to fill it,"

III announcer part OF MS argument III
the Bell case, Senator Edmunds said:
So, then, Mr.. President, | have nj;
difficulty with this case myself aftei
hearing all that has been said ON this
subject and thinking about it, and l be-
lfeve five decide it in favor of this can.
didate, matter of very little practica
consequence of course, because the
Legislature shall meet so soon, we shall
have established just and wise deci-
sion i'm favor of giving the people ol
every State, who are the persons who
are really represented, the fullest op.
portunity in one way or another TIC
have their seats here kept full-Con-
gressionaIl Record, 1879, page 351.
Mr.. President, the construction
contend for is in line with the decisions
of the Supreme Court of the United
States in rules it applies to the Con-
stitution. The breadth of construction
adopted by the court in the interstate
commerce and post-offices and post
sharpest contrast with the narrowness
of the construction urged by those who
differ with my contention. (See Glib
bons VS.. Ogden, Wheaton, 49,
The contention that the power of the
governor should be restricted because
of +he fear that his appointments might
be personal friends must not obtain,
for such contention overloloks the
fact that at the time of the making of
the Constitution all the States gave to
che governors thereof most ample DOW
er to make appointments. In fact, in
most if not all the States then and up
TO a very recent period the governor
appointed all State officers, including
judges 'of all courts, generals.
etc.
l. is surprising that there are men
who, understanding the vast and un-
limited powers that were given the
governors OF States as TO the appoint-
ment OF State officers, should hold that
the power u name the representative
of uhe people of the State in the United
Sta.es Senate in vacancies like the
present Was withheld, and so because
ne might IN the latter case name a
favomte. No fears do they entertain
That In the important appointments OF
judges and attorney generals he might
Ue given 10 naming favorites, 0heir
fears being confined to temporary ap-
pointments to I'LL vacancies in the
Senate.
Speaking OF consistency, where is it
here? Is it reasonable 70 presume that
the trainers OF the Federal Constitu-
tion III their work ON THAI instrument,
placed less trust and confidence in the
governors or the States in filling vacan-
cies in the united States Senate than
they did when making State Constitu-
tions, in which work many OF them en-
gagged! Certainly not. Had distrust
possessed them in the one ease i
would have us certainly controllod
'neAh IN lhe other, and, therefore. mis-
aspect of the contention musf NO
abandoned.
Much stress is placed by those who
oppose The seating Of Mr.. Quay ON
Wnat uhey claim TO find in the debates
IN the Constitutional Convention sun-
por,ing their contention. Inasmucb as
tnose who drafted the Constitution did
not adopt it, little force should be given
TO their particular views, for there is
no evidence that the great body of The
people who did adopt it shared these
views, be they pro or con.
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ON this question, in Commonwealth VS..
Balph Gil Pa. State Reports, page $50
etc., said:
In the consideration and discussion
of this action of the Constitution. l
throw out of view the copious citations
which have been furnished us from
the debates in the convention. They
are OF value as showing the views of
individual members and AIS indicating
the reasons for their votes. But they
give us no light as to the views of the
large majority who did not talk, much
less of the mass of our fellow-citizens
whose votes at the polls gave that
instrument the force of fundamental
law. We think it safe to construe the
Constitution from what appears upon
its face.0
Prior debates in the Senate gave no
aid except as an opinion of the Senator
who then spoke, and the greatest care
must be exercised lest it be now con-
strued different from the sense in
which he intended it.
Citation of what a Senator said in
any former case in proof only Of what
he thought, and is MO evidence of what
were his associates thoughts or of the
grounds on which thea particular case
was decided. If the foregoing views be
correct, the conclusion must be that the
governor of Pennsylvania had the pow
er, on April 21. 1899 to make the tern-