Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1951-02-25

campaign of Senator John Mar
elected to the upper house from
Senator Willard Tydings, Democ
is the chief complaining witness
Mr.. Tydings wants the Senate to
throw Senator Butler out and
possibly to recommend his indict-
ment for criminal libel. Mr.
Tydings has made his charges at
the first open hearing held by the
committee and has included at
least one charge of improper cam
paign expenditure. Senator But
Ter has still to make his reply to
these detailed charges.
Never before. in the recollection
of members of the committee, has
a Senator's right to his seat been
challenged on the ground of libel
GUS campaigning, the chief charge
made by the complaining witness.
Challenges in past cases have re-
volved around charges of improper
and excessive campaign expendi-
lures, around charges of fraudu-
lent voting, either at the polls or
In State Legislatures and around
charges Of moral turpitude. Faced
by this new proposition, the COM
mittee is called upon to determine
the fitness of Senator Butler to
retain his seat.
In the past, the political make
up of the Senate has been a con-
trolling factor in its decisions on
contested cases involving the right
of a Senator to his seat-but
there have been a number of
exceptions to this rule, if it can
be said to be rule. The present
Senate is composed Of 40 Demo-
Gratis and At Republicans. If the
Rules Committee should decide,
for one reason or another, that
Mr.. Butler is not entitled to re-
tain his seat and so report to the
Senate, his political fate would
hang in the balance-and could
be decided by a straight party
vote. The committee, however,
seems still a long way from a
decision, nor is it possible to pre-
dict how individual Senators will
vote.
Buffers Oath Recalled
When Senator Butler took the
oath of office at the opening of the
present session, it was with the
stipulation that the oath be adj
ministered without prejudice
either to him or to the constitu-
tional right or power of the Senate
to take any action it may subse-
quently deem proper, pending the
outcome of the investigation now
being made into the election in
said State CMaryland).
Parliamentarians hold that the
Senate by majority vote can de-
prive Senator Butler of his seat
If a vote is taken on a challenge
to his right to the seat in the
first instance-and that this would
have been the fact whether the
stipulation had been formally
entered into or not. The two
thirds vote required under the
rules for expulsion of a Senator,
after he has been seated, relates,
they say, only to some action per-
formed by him after he had been
seated in the Senate. In other
words, Mr.. Butler might be de-
prived of his seat a year from now,
or two years, or at any time dur
ing his siX-year term, if the chal-
lenge goes back to his original
right to be seated. The Lorimer
case, in which a Senator from
Illinois was finally ousted although
he had been seated and had served
as Senator for more than two
years, is cited in support of this
contention. Lorimer was ousted
by a vote of IS to 28-less than
two-thirds vote.
Other Challenges
Bribery, excessive spending and
voting frauds have been frequent
grounds for seeking to deny Sen
ators-elect their seats. The case
of Alexander Caldwell of Arkansas
in 1872, who was charged with
corruption in connection with his
election to the Senate. bears out
the contention that a Senator
may be denied his seat by a
majority vote. In the Caldwell
case the Senate investigating
committee held that the evidence
Of corruption went to the validity
of his election. 1t was charged
by some Senators that the proper
course was to expel Caldwell on
the evidence. The majority, how
ever, believed that he could be
declared not elected and so ex-
cluded by a majority vote. Cald-
well resigned before a vote was
taken.
The Lorimer case, already men
toned. is one of the most famous
cases of Senate contests and ex-
clusion. William Lorimer, Repub- |