The Jeffersonian. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1907-1917, 1911-07-20
Will Governor Smiths HOIdinU
OF Two Offices Cause the
State Future Trouble?

In my article in the Atlanta Constitution
(copied into this paper last weekly, did not
go into the question of future cost and trou-
BILE to the State of Georgia After having
written postscript to that effect withheld
it for further reflection.
The law nowhere provides for the accept
ance of the office of u S. Senator; nor for
the acceptance of the resignation of Senator.
The act of resigning, in writing of course,
completes itself. The joint concurrence of the
Vice-Presldent, or of the Governor is not es-
sential. When Joe Bailey sent his telegram
OF resignation to the Governor of Texas, and
his written remuneration of his office to the
President of the Senate he ceased to be
legally member of the Senate
In the case of ex-senator Terrell the words
of the Constitution of the United States are
plain, positive, conclusive
Ii vacancy occurs in states repre-
sentation in the Senate, when the legislature
is not IN session, the Governor may fill it bv
appointment "unI the next meeting of the
legislature"
Can there be any doubt about the meaning
of the word "until?" Is there anything to
differ about? Terrell need not have ten
dered a resignation He had nothing to re-
5mqu1sh. The Senatorship had been given
HIM for specified time. When that time ex-
plred, his official life terminated. He was
functuS offcio when the legislature met
certainly when his successor was elected.
Who IS Senator from Georgia? Smith ran
Tor the office, spent money like water to get
1t, huckstered patronage to get it, schemed in
all directions to get it-did he get it?
The official records of the legislature show
that he did. The legislature must take no.
tice that he did. The courts must take Judi
clal cognlzance Of the fact that he did, No.
qoheTe IS his formal acceptance made meces-
sny. There is no legal machinery provided
for any notification of his election. or for
his formal acceptance. The zoa0 assumes
acceptance. But in Smiths case, did he
not publicly and formally accept? Did
not his speech after his election virtually
amount to that? If not, what was the
speech about? I mean of course, the speech
OF thanks that he made to his friends imme-
diately after his election
When one thanks ones supporters, after
they have elected him to an office, is not that
an acceptance of the office?
1t being matter of record which courts
must take official cognizance of, that Smith
has been elected to the Senate; and there be-
ing no requirement of law that he shall for
mally accept, why IS not the State confronted
by a most serious danger?
Are his official acts legal, after july 18th?
Are offices filled by him legally filed? Are
Judges whom he commissions, lawfully in
Office! Are treasury signed bv him
legal vouchers? Are acts of the legislature
signed by him, good laws?
Of course, the ordinary rule is that the
acts of one actually in office, cannot be col
literally attacked. But this case is wholly
different.
Here we have legislative record, of which
courts must take judicial cognizance and
which proves that Governor Smith became
Senator on July 18th. Consequently, laws
and commissions, and warrants signed bv
HIM, afterwards, may be attacked in any
court.