CONTEST OF JOHNSON VS. OVERSTREET
Mr. McCULLOCH offered a resolution authorizing the Committee on Elections to send for persons and papers and examine witnesses in the contest of Johnson vs. Overstreet.
Mr. SPANN moved to strike out the word "witnesses" and insert words authorizing the taking of depositions an additional charge having been filed of bribery, and believing, under the protest filed against it, the Committee should not consider that charge. There is a remedy under the statute, and that not having been chosen, witnesses should not be sent for. That expense should not be allowed and can be avoided by the taking of depositions before the proper tribunals pointed out by law.
Mr. BELL thought this matter of disqualification may be one of contest or otherwise. The matter has been considered by the Committee, which have concluded the contestee can file additional charges. There was a showing made excusing the not filing of this ground of contest earlier. The statute relative to contest of elections of this kind furnishes means by which testimony can be taken in advance of the meeting of the Legislature. Upon the filing of such a charge the Senate could by a resolution authorize the sending for persons and papers, in compliance with the provisions of the Constitution and one of the statutory grounds of contest. He would not agree that it is best to take depositions-to do that means a continuance and no determination of the question this session. He had no doubt of the regularity of the proceedings in this case thus far.
Mr. SPANN spoke further in favor of his amendment, insisting it is better to comply wit the statutes in such cases mad and provided, which he read. The purpose of that l aw was to allow evidence to be taken at their own homes to save expense to the State. The resolution means to give unlimited power to bring every creditable witness in Johnson and Morgan Counties up here, which expense should be avoided.
Mr. McCULLOCH stated, in response to an inquiry, that there are already probably over 100 depositions before the Committee.
Mr. BROWN, understanding the charge to be that the sitting Senator offered, and gave bribes to secure his election, contended that was not a ground for contest-if that charge be true the Senator is removed and there becomes a vacancy, but the contestor could not be seated. If it is found that the charge is true the seat is vacated. The Senate has already found there is sufficient to put the Senate on an inquiry as to whether the sitting Senator did offer or give bribes to secure his election. The Senate ought to go on and hear the proof, and this investigation should only o this charge. Having the witnesses brought face to face is certainly the best way, and is likely the most expedient. Every vote cast by a disqualified member is a factor that should be eliminated as speedily as possible if such is found to be the case.
Mr. SAYRE did not understand any charge has been made authorizing any investigation as to the qualification of the sitting member; and he maintained until some charge is made that a Senator is here unfit to occupy his place. There is nothing before the Senate authorizing the sending for persons and paper.
Mr. FOULKE contended that the proceedings indicated by the amendment of the Senator from Rush (Mr. Spann) is the only course pointed out by law. t is not the question whether the contestor shall be seated or not only, but whether the contestee is qualified to fill the seat. The question of this contest is the only one before the Committee, and they are bound by the statute in the mode of taking testimony.
Mr. McCULLOCH considered there is no question, but the Senate has the right to send for witnesses in such a case and defied any Senator to show a word in the statue undertaking to prescribe how the Senate shall be governed as to the manner in which it shall obtain information in relation to a question in which it is to be the exclusive judge. The statute is not exclusive upon anything relating to this question nor to contests in cases of County officers. While the statute provides depositions may be taken it does not undertake to say that the better testimony shall be excluded for witnesses to be brought face to face before the accused and the tribunal. The resolution will tend to economy. If this evidence has to be taken by deposition, then days time and ten days notice will be necessary; justices will have to be recommissioned, and every one having experience knows the difficulty in having papers corrected by deposition. The Committee and Senate will be able to pass more justly upon testimony obtained from witnesses than otherwise. And whether expensive or not the Senate should adopt the rule that will tend to the most fair and just investigation. He moved a substitute for the whole matter, that the Committee be empowered to send for persons and papers to the end that the charge of bribery may be supported or negatived.
On motion by Mr. SPANN, this matter was postponed till to-morrow at 10 o'clock a. m.
