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

Mantle. and Corbett cases. declared that
those precedents bind the Senate. and that
on that ground alone Mr.. Quay should be
denied a seat as had been done in the
cases of the other claimants. MIR. Lind
say argued that as the cases referred TO
were authoritatiyely 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
ings of the Senate sitting as a court in
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 quiet vote. ! do not maintain that
this Senate has not the right TO reverse
any decision which il has heretofore made,
but l do maintain that those decisions
cannot be reversed simply because OF a
change in political conditions governing
the case. and former prcccdents 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 WIS 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 If Mr.. Quay
were seated and the Pennsylvania Legis-
lature should fail to elect a Senator at its
next session, a precedent would have been
established whereby Mr. Quay could he
appointed again and again as lorg as the
Legislature should fail to elect.
Mr. Lindsay then took up the discussion
of the meaning OF the clauses of The Con-
stitutIon applying to the case which he
discussed at length, concluding lis re-
marks with further reference to precedent.
Mr.. Chandler challenged certain of Mr..
Lindsay'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 thaving taken action in the case Of
Woods. the claimant for a seat in the
Senate from Kentucky. After a further
discussion between Messrs. Lindsay and
Chandler, Mr.. Spooner took the floor and
made a speech in favor of the seating of
Mr.. Quay.
MIR. Spooncr 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
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 UP 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 and again re-
versed its decisions-that the Supreme
Court had done so. He said that in courts
of law the arguments that were presented
were listened TO. but that was seldom done
in the Senate.
Mr.. Spooner contended 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. 1t was not so. how
ever, as to that class of controversies or
questions on which no general property
right rested. The Senate was a political
body. and, in discussing or acting On such
questiOrs, ii was not acting in the calm
atmosphere of a court from which par
tisanship was ordinarily excluded. II the
precedent made in the Corbett case was
right, it should be adhered to, not because
it was made, but because it was right, and
II 1t were wrong ii should be abandoned
because it was wrong
Mr.. Hale asked whether Mr. Spooner
thought it 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
guidance of Legislatures and Governors it
was better that there should be an end CT
such contentious? And did he think that.
If it should happen that this contention
should be decided in favor of Mr. Quay by
q bare majority, that would settle the con-
tention?
No" Mr.. Spooner replied.
Then the Senator does not wish IT set
Ned Mr.. Hale persisted
Il did not say that" said Mr. Spoone-
q ask the Senator" Mr.. Hale went On.
"as lawyer and a thoughtful man.
whether he does not think il better that
in this body some time or other this ques-
tion should be settled. so that Governors
aud Legislatures shall know the line Of
action to be observed?"
Mr.. SpOoner-The Senator from Maine
would consider it eternally settled. l su9-
pose so long as it is settled in his way
Mr. Hale-I do not think so. Il happens
to be a fact that it always has been settled
in my way.
Mr.. Spooner-But, if it had not been?
Mr.. Hale-I would have given 1t up.
Mr. Spooner-I don't think so-not un-
less the Senator changed his nature.
Glad of settlement.
Mr. Spooner-I regret that the question
is here now, but it is here. l shall be
be glad if the discussion of it and the
settlement of it shall lead either to leg
islstion or TO constitutional amendment
that will 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 filing
vacancies. contending thai the spirit of it
was that each State should always have Its
full representation in the Senate. and he
laid stress on the fact that although the
by the Governor is only to
continue until the meeting and organiza-
tion of the Legislature the Senate had al
ways construed that as meaning until the
election by the Legislature or until its ad-
journment.
In conclusion he declared that neither
unpopularity. nor anything what
ever could induce him to vote to exclude
a man who came TO the Senate with ere
dentials which he CMr Spoonerl felt bound
to accept; and therefore he should vote
for Mr.. Quay.
Mr.. Stewart said that he had voted
against Mr Corbett not on constitutional
grounds, but because Mr. CorbGtt had not
presented himself with clean hands. He
had no doubt whatever OF the right Of a
~ essssssss ssssssssssSsss
q .