"And thereupon Mr. Douglass declared that there had been no election of United States Senator, and the assembly adjourned.

"The total votes cast, which justify the conclusion that there was no choice, appear above, as follows:

"An attempt has been made to show that Martin in the assembly as cut short by the lieutenant-governor was elected without counting the 10 illegal votes, as follows:

"votes cast by legal members; and being exactly a majority of the whole 165 legal members of the legislature.

"But to make this calculation it is necessary to count the 2 votes of Wilson and Rosenthal from the Douglass house, while excluding the 65 other members of that house and the 15 Senators.

"To justify taking in the 2 while excluding the 80 is impossible.

"From the foregoing facts it is not difficult to reach two conclusions: First, the time had not arrived when the legislature of Kansas could lawfully elect a United States Senator. The legislature had not been organized within the meaning of the United States law, which is as follows:

*

"SEC. 14. The legislature of each State * * shall, on the second Tuesday after the meeting and organization thereof, proceed to elect a Senator in Congress.' "It is true that there was a lawful senate, and it is true, as appears from the subsequent decision of the supreme court of Kansas, that there was a lawful house. But it is also true that there was, in addition to the lawful house, an unlawful house, and that unlawful house was recognized by the senate and by the governor, while the lawful house received no recognition as such, either from the senate or from the governor.

"Manifestly there was no organization of a legislature within the meaning of the national statute, so that the time began to run at the end of which, by the national law, it was the right and the duty of the members of the legislature to elect a United States Senator. In no just sense could the legislature be said to be organized under the conditions above described. It is not contended that in all cases where a lawful senate and a lawful house are organized it must be shown that they communicate with each other and recognize each other. That fact is to be presumed in the absence of counter proof; but as soon as such counter proof appears and the anomalous condition is shown that the lawful house has made no connection with the senate, but that the senate, on the other hand, is in connection with an unlawful house, there can not be said to be in any proper sense an organization of the legislature within the meaning of the United States statute. This point I do not intend to enlarge upon. I am thoroughly convinced of its validity.

"But, conceding that there was an organized legislature on Tuesday, January 10, 1893, entitled, on the second Tuesday thereafter, namely, on January 24, and on the day after, the 25th, to elect a United States Senator, it seems clear that there was no lawful election. Review the facts. The members of the three houses met in one room. The voting began. A part of the senators voted, the other part omitting to

vote. The members of the unlawful house voted, the members of the lawful house omitting to vote when the roll was called by the clerk of the unlawful house, whom they did not recognize as clerk. Then two members of the legal house asked to vote, and their votes were received. Next, the senators who had not voted and the members of the legal house asked to vote, but the lieutenant-governor refused to receive their votes, although he had received the two votes from the members of the legal house, and then he declared Mr. Martin elected.

"Can it be by any possibility contended that the lieutenant-governor had any right so to deal with the joint assembly; to receive the votes of the members of the illegal house; to receive at his discretion the votes of two members of the legal house, and then to exclude the remaining 62 members of the legal house and 15 senators? The idea is preposterous. The case is clear. Either there was no lawful joint assembly on that day, because the legislature was not organized, or it was the duty of the lieutenant-governor to receive the votes of all the members of the two houses. To base the right of a Senator to a seat upon this floor, as Senator Martin's right is based, solely upon the assumed authority of the lieutenant-governor, as exercised in this case, to receive votes enough to elect Mr. Martin and make a majority of the legal votes of the whole legislature, and then to arbitrarily stop the balloting and declare Mr. Martin to be elected, is as dangerous and vicious à proceeding as has ever been heard of in the history of fraudulent elections."

TUESDAY, February 12, 1895.

Mr. Gray, from the Committee on Privileges and Elections, reported the following resolution, which was referred to the Committee to Audit and Control the Contingent Expenses of the Senate:

"Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of the contingent fund of the Senate, to Joseph W. Ady, the contestant of the seat of John Martin, a Senator from Kansas, the sum of $2,000, in full of expenses incurred by the said Joseph W. Ady in his said contest." (Cong. Rec., vol. 27, p. 2064.)

TUESDAY, February 19, 1895. The foregoing resolution was reported favorably, without amendment, by the Committee to Audit and Control the Contingent Expenses of the Senate. (Cong. Rec., vol. 27, p. 2369.)

TUESDAY, February 26, 1895.

Mr. Gray, from the Committee on Privileges and Elections, reported the following resolution, which was referred to the Committee to Audit and Control the Contingent Expenses of the Senate:

"Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of the contingent fund of the Senate, to John Martin, a Senator from the State of Kansas, the sum of $1,000, in full of compensation and all expenses incurred by him in the contest for his seat in the Senate by Joseph W. Ady." (Cong. Rec., vol. 27, p. 2748.)

THURSDAY, February 28, 1895.

Mr. HOAR. I ask unanimous consent for the consideration of the resolution in the case of Mr. Ady.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hill in the chair). The resolution will be read. The Secretary read the following resolution reported from the Committee to Audit and Control the Contingent Expenses of the Senate on the 12th instant [error for 19th instant]:

"Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of the contingent fund of the Senate, to Joseph W. Ady, the contestant of the seat of John Martin, a Senator from Kansas, the sum of $2,000, in full of expenses incurred by the said Joseph W. Ady in his said contest.' The resolution was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to. (Cong. Rec., vol. 27, p. 2901.)

THURSDAY, February 28, 1895.

Mr. Jones, of Arkansas, from the Committee to Audit and Control the Contingent Expenses of the Senate, to whom was referred the following resolution submitted by Mr. Gray on the 26th instant, reported it without amendment:

"Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of the contingent fund of the Senate, to John Martin, a Senator from the State of Kansas, the sum of $1,000, in full of compensation and all expenses incurred by him in the contest for his seat in the Senate by Joseph W. Ady."

Mr. HOAR. I now ask for the consideration of the resolution relating to the payment of the expenses of the Senator from Kansas [Mr. Martin].

The resolution was read, considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to. (Cong. Rec., vol. 27, p. 2901.)

[Fifty-third Congress, third session.]

WARREN T. REESE, of Alabama.

During the third session of the Fifty-third Congress and on the 1st day of February, 1895, the credentials of Warren T. Reese were presented to the Senate, certifying to the election of said Warren T. Reese as a Senator from the State of Alabama for the term of six years, commencing on the 4th day of March, A. D. 1895, being the same term which was afterwards filled by Hon. John T. Morgan in due course. After discussion the credentials of Mr. Reese were ordered to lie on the table, but were not afterwards taken from the table, debated, or acted upon.

The history of the case as here given consists of a statement of the proceedings in the Senate as published in the Congressional Record.

FRIDAY, February 1, 1895.

Mr. ALLEN. I present the credentials of Warren T. Reese, a Senator elect from the State of Alabama, and ask that they be read and placed on the files. The VICE-PRESIDENT. The Secretary will read the credentials. The Secretary read as follows:

"STATE OF ALABAMA, EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT.

"This is to certify that on the 28th day of November, in the year of our Lord 1894, Warren T. Reese was duly elected by the legislature of Alabama a Senator to represent said State in the Senate of the United States for the term of six years, commencing the 4th day of March, A. D. 1895.

"Witness: His excellency our governor, R. F. Kolb, and our seal hereunto affixed, at Montgomery, Ala., this 8th day of December, in the year of our Lord 1894, and of the Independence of the United States of America the one hundred and eighteenth.

"By the governor:

"J. C. FONVILLE, Secretary of State."

R. F. KOLB, Governor.

Mr. GRAY. I move that the communication just read be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections.

Mr. ALLEN. I hope that the Senator from Delaware will withdraw that motion and allow the credentials to take the usual course.

Mr. GRAY. What is the usual course, may I ask the Senator from Nebraska?

Mr. ALLEN. I suppose it is to place them on the files the same as other credentials. I do not know that the credentials should go to the Committee on Privileges and Elections unless there is some contest.

Mr. GRAY. I do not think that would be the usual course for a communication of this kind. I think the reference I propose is the proper one.

Mr. ALLEN. It does not occur to me that it is proper at this time. If a contest comes up here I suppose the Committee on Privileges and Elections will have to consider it. I hope the Senator from Delaware will not insist on his motion.

Mr. GRAY. I have no objection to letting the paper lie on the table for the present. Mr. ALLEN. I simply desire to state that there is or will be a contest regarding a seat in the Senate from the State of Alabama. That fact can not be any longer ignored.

Mr. GRAY. Such a contest can not be made in the present Congress nor at the present session.

After further discussion the credentials presented by Mr. Allen were ordered to lie on the table.

(Cong. Rec., vol. 27, pp. 1604, 1605.)

[Fifty-fourth Congress, first and second sessions.]

HENRY A. DU PONT, of Delaware.

On the third day of the first session of the Fifty-fourth Congress Henry A. Du Pont, of Delaware, presented to the Senate of the United States his claim to a seat in the Senate as a Senator from the State of Delaware, duly elected to serve as such for the term of six years, commencing on the 4th day of March, 1895. In support of this claim Mr. Du Pont filed a certificate signed by the speaker of the Delaware house of representatives and attested by the clerk of said house, stating and asserting that on the 9th day of May, 1895, at a session of the senate and house of representatives of the State of Delaware, convened in joint assembly for the purpose of electing a Senator from said State, s ballot was duly taken for the election of a Senator, as aforesaid; that on such ballot Henry A. Du Pont received 15 votes, Edward Ridgely received 10 votes, John E. Addicks received 4 votes, and Ebe W. Tunnell received 1 vote; that one of the ten votes so received by the said Edward Ridgely in said joint assembly was given by William T. Watson; that upon the organization of the senate of said State of Delaware upon the first Tuesday of January, A. D. 1895, said William T. Watson was duly elected and qualified as the speaker of the senate, and that on the 9th day of April, A. D. 1896, the said William T. Watson duly took the oath of office as governor of said state of Delaware in place of Joshua H. Marvil, deceased; that upon his qualifying and entering upon the exercise of the office of governor, as aforesaid, the said William T. Watson ceased to have the right to act as a member of the senate of said State, or to vote in said joint assembly for the election of a Senator in Congress, as aforesaid; that said vote so given for said Edward Ridgely by said William T. Watson was given illegally and in violation of the constitution of the State of Delaware; and that Henry A. Du Pont on said ballot having received 15 votes, and Edward Ridgely having received only 9 legal votes, John E. Addicks having received 4 votes, and Ebe W. Tunnell having received 1 vote, the sid Henry A. Du Pont having thereby received a majority of the votes of all the senators and representatives then constituting the legislature of the State of Delaware, they being all present and voting, was duly elected a Senator from the State of Delaware, and was duly declared elected to that office by the speaker of the house of representatives of the State of Delaware.

The claim of Mr. Du Pont and the aforesaid certificate were referred to the Committee on Privi leges and Elections. Subsequently certain affidavits and portions of the senate journal of the legislature of the State of Delaware were also referred to the same committee.

The report of the committee affirmed the right of Mr. Du Pont to a seat in the Senate, and was accompanied by a resolution that Mr. Du Pont was entitled to a seat in the Senate as a Senator from the State of Delaware for the full term commencing March 4, 1895. Afterwards a minority report was filed, signed by four members of the committee, declaring that Mr. Du Pont was not legally elected to the Senate.

After a debate extending, at intervals, over a period of several months, Mr. Du Pont was declared by a vote of 31 to 30 not to be entitled to a seat in the Senate.

Subsequently, and during the second session of the Fifty-fourth Congress, Mr. Du Pont presented to the Senate a memorial praying that all the papers and documents in the case be taken from the files and again referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections, with directions to reinvestigate such election and reconsider the same in all particulars. This memorial was referred to the Com mittee on Privileges and Elections, which committee afterwards filed a report recommending that the case be not reopened.

The history of the case here given consists of a statement of the proceedings of the Senate in the case as published in the Congressional Record, the report of the Committee on Privileges and Elec tions, the views of a minority of the committee, a statement of the days on which the question was debated in the Senate, with a reference to the record of the same as published in the Congressional Record, extracts from remarks of Senators in such debate, the vote on agreeing to the amendment to the resolution submitted by the Committee on Privileges and Elections, and the vote on agreeing to the resolution as amended, the proceedings in the Senate with reference to the memorial subse quently presented by Mr. Du Pont, and the report of the Committee on Privileges and Elections recommending that the case be not reopened.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE SENATE.

WEDNESDAY, December 4, 1895. Mr. Mitchell, of Oregon, presented the petition of Henry A. Du Pont, of Delaware, claiming a seat in the Senate for the full term commencing March 4, 1895, by virtue of his election by the legislature of the State of Delaware. He also presented a certificate of the election of Mr. Du Pont, signed by the speaker of the Delaware house of representatives and attested by the clerk of the house. Both the claim and the certificate aforesaid were read and ordered to be printed and referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections.

(Cong. Rec., vol. 28, pp. 29, 30.)

WEDNESDAY, January 15, 1896. Mr. Gray presented the affidavits of Robert J. Hanby, William T. Records, Charles A. Hastings, John B. Pennington, and Edward D. Hearne, citizens of the State of

Delaware, which were referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections and ordered to be printed.

Mr. Mitchell, of Oregon, presented sundry affidavits and also portions of the senate journal of the legislature of the State of Delaware, all relating to the question of the election of Mr. Du Pont by the legislature of the State of Delaware, which were referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections and ordered to be printed as a document.

(Cong. Rec., vol. 28, p. 686.)

FRIDAY, January 24, 1896.

Mr. Mitchell, of Oregon, presented an affidavit relative to the case of Henry A. Du Pont, claiming to have been elected a Senator from the State of Delaware. It was ordered that the affidavit be printed as a document and referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections.

(Cong. Rec., vol. 28, p. 956.)

WEDNESDAY, January 29, 1896.

Mr. Gray presented certain affidavits in the matter of the claim of Henry A. Du Pont to a seat in the United States Senate; which were referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections and ordered to be printed. (Cong. Rec., vol. 28, p. 1065.)

THURSDAY, January 30, 1896.

Mr. Gray presented the affidavit of Samuel Alrichs, of Delaware, in the matter of the claim of Henry A. Du Pont to a seat in the United States Senate; which was referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections and ordered to be printed. (Cong. Rec., vol. 28, p. 1096.)

THURSDAY, February 13, 1896.

Mr. Turpie presented a certified copy of the return of the election of William T. Watson as senator for the county of Kent in the general assembly of the State of Delaware.

The paper was ordered to be printed and referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections.

(Cong. Rec., vol. 28, p. 1675.)

MONDAY, February 17, 1896.

Mr. Mitchell, of Oregon, from the Committee on Privileges and Elections, submitted a report relative to the claim of Henry A. Du Pont to a seat in the Senate from the State of Delaware. To this report was appended a resolution, as follows: "Resolved, That Henry A. Du Pont is entitled to a seat in the Senate from the State of Delaware for the full term commencing March 4, 1895."

After a brief discussion the report and resolution were temporarily withdrawn. (Cong. Rec., vol. 28, p. 1781.)

TUESDAY, February 18, 1896.

Mr. Mitchell, of Oregon, in behalf of the Committee on Privileges and Elections, presented the resolution and report submitted by him on the preceding day and temporarily withdrawn, in the matter of the claim of Henry A. Du Pont, of the State of Delaware, to a seat in the Senate from that State.

Mr. Turpie submitted the views of the minority of the committee.

It was ordered that the report and the views of the minority of the committee be printed in the Record and also printed together as a document.

(Cong. Rec., vol. 28, 1827, 1828.)

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE.

[The committee consisted of Messrs. Mitchell of Oregon (chairman), Hoar, Chandler, Burrows, Pritchard, Gray, Pugh, Turpie, and Palmer.]

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.

FEBRUARY 18, 1896.-Ordered to be printed.

Mr. Mitchell, of Oregon, from the Committee on Privileges and Elections, submitted the following report (to accompany S. Res. 133):

The Committee on Privileges and Elections, to whom was referred the petition of