Arizona republican., 1912-03-26
TUESDAY. MARCH 2G. lsl
The Senste's Standard.

The senate will take a vote Tues
 day on the report of the Stephenson Investigating committee that vote to determine the right of the Wisconsin
 senator [" his seat. IL seems we'll settled that the vote will he in Sen
 stor Supplements favor
 The following day there will be g vote on the Lorimer case. The re- suit of this vote iS much in doubt. with the chances somewhat against
 the Illinois man.
 Whether the senate shall. or shall
 not. declare the seats of two Of it's
 members vacant is. of itself. n matter of small moment. except to the per sons immediately concerned But itI k matter of overwhelming mpor- tance in another sense. The ques-
 Tion of real importance is; What standard of political purity will the senate Of the United States set for its members?
 rather careful reading of the re- Senator Stephenson spent any money corruptly or that money was used corrHptly with his knowledge The point made against him is that he
 gave to his mana gers and henchmcn more than 5i00 000 to be used in the election: and a good many senators nre rather firm in the belief that Senator Stephenson is not so simple minded as to believe that that vast sum was necessary to pay the legiti mate expenses of the canvass.
 The case is different with Senator Lorimer. Not that he is shown to have had personal knowledge of bribery: but il has been conclusively at least it has been shown with such conclusiveness as to satisfy any intelligent jury-that bribery was committed But there is wide differ ence Of opinion as to the view to be taken of such matters
 On one side is the extreme view of Senator Bailey. It is the Texas senator's contention that to invalidate the election it must be shown that d sufficient number of votes was pur- chased to equal the difference be- tween bare majority and the num- her actually cast for Mir. Lorimer The extreme view on the other side. | 10 which but few senators hold. how ever. is that single tainted vote is sufficient to nulify the election.
 Whatever the senate does in this | matter will stand Under the con stitution it is the sole judge of the ! election of its members From it's de !. cision there k no appeal. IL can make ! the rule as broad or as narrow as il plesses.
 In trying to get at the proper course i ro pursue here. it will be seen that q few features may be eliminated. | Y uSt. IT d StlldlpI ii6S t'flilllllllt-b bribery himself he should not sit in | The senate. That proposition will he accepted without argument. Also. if | without his knowledge. but on his be- | half, there is sufficient bribery to give him an election he would not l otherwise have received. he should | lose his seat No one will argue the negative of that proposition. The on iy question then left is. shall the | comparative heinousness of the crime | of bribery be considered? 1
 Put it in this form. Suppose it he | shown that a senator had d majority I of twenty-five votes. and suppose it ] be shown further that one of those votes was purchased on his behalf. | Since the bribery would not affect the | result of the election shall he he per mitted 10 retain his seat?
 II the question he answered in the