The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1909-02-01
Oft Construed Law for
Election of Senators Not
Entirely Clear.
ISSUE is RAISED
FOR FIRST TIME
Question Involved One of Majority
or of Quorum Voting in
Each House.

II would seem that IN the forty-three
years since the Federal Government
prescribed the present method Of elect
ing United States Senator's, about all
the conceivable questions relating 10
the construction OF the law Of 1866 ought
TO have been settled. Yet II develops
that the fight in the Wisconsin Legis-
IaJure, now in session. is likely TO bring
several new issues for determination by
the Senate Committee on Elections, and
ultimately by the Senate.
The question whether Senator Stephen
son was elected on Tuesday, January %
by the separate sessions OF the two
Wisconsin houses. AMI is now the
oe facto Standardized, has divided
the lawyers and experts Of the Senate.
Entered on Journal
Describing the separate sessions Of
the two houses, the law says the name
OF any person who receives a majority
''of the whole number of votes cast in
each house shall be entered on the
journal 1t is not stated that such
majority of votes cast shall be evil
dence OF election. Instead. these pro-
ceedings or the first day are made pre-
hmlnary TO those Of the second day,
when the joint assembly is held.
AT the joint assembly the journals OF
the two houses are TO be read, and the
law says, IF the same person has re-
Ceived a majority OF all the votes in
each house he shall be declared elect
ed" 1t doesn't say, in this case, "a
majority OF all the votes cast ia each
house" but OF all the votes.
Query No. /: is there a difference in
the intent of these two phrases Must
a man receive merely a majority Of g
quorum in each house, to be elected,
or must he receive majority OF all
the membership OF each hOuSe?'
This applies directly TO the Wisconsin
case. On the day OF the separate ses-
siOns Stephenson received a majority
of the whole membership of the House,
but only received a majority OF quo
rum in the Senate. Was he elected on
that day.
Would Have Won.
The next day the joint assembly met
If all the votes cast for him on the
previous day had been cast for him
IN joint assembly, Stephenson would
have won. But over night some de-
serted, and in joint assembly. where
sixty-seve1 votes are necessary TO elect,
he received only sixty-five
II a majority OF quorum IN each
House can elect, but If il requires q
majority Of the total membership 10
elect IN the joint assembly-theH there
$ presented strange contradiction in
the law. If that be true. fOrty-three
votes, properly distributed, could elect
a Senator from Wisconsin. by control
ing the separate sessions, though there
are les members OF the legislature But
1t would require siXty-seven 20 elect In
the joint session. Was this the inten-
tiOn of the law?
Taking the exact figures of the wis
cOusin legislature TO illustrate. It IS
shown that there are thirty-three sen
atOrs; seventeen constitute a quorum
nine would control In the house there
are 1872 members siXty-seven make
- quorum; and thiTty-fOur would control
This nine senators plus thiTty-four as
ElHEa lHr
more than Une-fOuTth the total mem
bership Of the legislature.
Not Of a Quorum.
But let # go 10 the joint assembly.
and under all the practice and decisions,
there must be a clear majority, not Of
a quorum. but Of the total membership
OF the joint assembly that is. while
f0rty-three legislators might choose a
Senator in the separate sessions, IL
would take seventy-siE IN the joint
But this is not the only question, In
one house of the legislature the journal
was not made 20 read as the Steplen-
son people wanted. Iney have express
ed uncertainty whether the record is
proper Tor the purposes or becoming
basis Of Certlncarl0u or an election.
The presiding officer declared the rec
ord approved, however, and this raises
another point which is expected 10 re-
quire attention later.
Charges have been filed against Sen
aL0E stephenson al--S-u5 excessive
and in some cases actually corrupt use
OF money, or attempted use Of IT, iu
mis- primary. These the Senators friends
vigorously deny. he has filed no Of
dciaI statement Of campaign expenses
under the Wisconsin state law, ora the
ground that they are not required 70
do so until latter election" and that
they think. means after the election by
the legislature.
The crowd wants the statement filed
before the legislature acts, assuming
that the phrase "after election" has
reference TO the election iu November
II Is definitely given ont that d.
Stephenson fs elected demand viii be
made that tie Senate investigate these
Chargs or corruption Senator LaFOl-
Eette Us expected to lead iu the move.