THE MORGAN AND JOHNSON CUTEST.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR stated this question to be on the substitute pending at the adjournment last evening authorizing the Committee on Elections to send for persons and papers necessary to support or negative the charge of bribery made against Senator Overstreet.
Mr. SPANN insisted the Committee had no need of the power sought for in this resolution. A party charged with disqualification should be brought before the Bar of the Senate. Under the statute the issue is on ineligibility. The Committee ought to hear nothing in this case except as to the contest. If Senator Overstreet is arraigned before the Bar of the Senate, he is ready to meet the charge. If the Committee should find the Senator guilty of bribery, although unseating him, it would not seat Mr. Johnson. It looks like the purpose is, under cover, to gather evidence to bolster up the contest for the seat. The law says the contestor and contestee shall bear the expense of the contest themselves. The law evidently intended that evidence should be taken entirely before the Commission provided by law, and should there be closed to all intents and purposes, and the Commission of Justices for the purposes of taking the deposition has expired. He spoke further against the adoption of the substitute.
Mr. WILLARD considered this a purely legal question, and could see no reason for excitement in its discussion. He regarded the question to go as far as to ineligibility, The statute distinctly provides for cases like this. It is clearly within the province of the Committee to inquire into the eligibility of the sitting member. The Senate is a Court having exclusive jurisdiction as to the qualifications of its own members. The English rule has been well settled, and there is no variance from that rule where the majority candidate is ineligibile, the candidate receiving the next highest number of votes is entitled to the seat. He read from XIV Ind , page 93, where there was ineligibility on account of holding a judicial office. The question narrows down to this: Did a sufficient number of the voters in this contest have knowledge of the charge of of bribery? It is the purpose of the resolution I(P i quire into that matter. If there be no notice then there is no cause of removal on that charge. Will you deny the right of having evidence on this subject? It can not be told how long it will take to obtain necessary depositions, and the Senate or the House has power at all times to send for persons and papers He could not, understand why Senators on the other side are unwilling to have the matter thoroughly investigated.
Mr. VOYLES thought the discussion had taken a wider range than is proper at this stage of the proceeding. The inquiry is narrowed down to the one question of bribery. He favored, if evidence is heard at all, that witnesses should be sent for. Their bearing and consistency upon the stand should be observed. The taking of depositions might be made almost interminable. All material evidence can soon be obtained by sending for witnesses, and the losing party having to pay the cost. No more witnesses would be sent for than are necessary. After grounds have been filed in s contest under the statute, the contestor has the right to present supplemental ground where he shows a good excuse for not filing the same in the proper time No respectable authority will deny the right to amend or supplement such complaint. If it be true a bribe was given by the sitting member and known to a number of voters sufficient to change the result, the contestor would be entitled to a seat. This is a question of fact.
Mr. BUNDY insisted the argument of the Senator from Rush [Mr Spann] has not and can not be answered. The question pending "before the Committee is in the nature of a contest. That is the matter referred to the Committee, and not a question of bribery-that has not been referred to the Committee. The pending resolution asks authority to send for persons and papers, that evidence may be taken to support and negative a charge of bribery. A Committee has no power except to answer questions referred to it, and that question was not referred as a charge of bribery, but as an additional ground of con lest. Bribery Is not a cause of contest under the statute in an election to the General Assembly. There is a difference between the question of ineligibility and the question of qualification. The object of the page: 67[View Page 67] resolution is evidently to make the State of Indiana pay the expense, instead of letting it fall upon the parties to the contest.
Mr. BROWN sent to the Clerk's desk and had read the supplemental cause of contest discovering a new cause, viz: the second statutory cause-said contestee did offer and give a bribe of money to secure his election. He said: That paper shows it was intended to be regarded as additional ground; and it is double-to much as recites the fact as to the majority of votes cast is in the nature of a contest; but so much as refers to the bribe, that act has placed a bar of disqualification as to holding office. If the sitting Senator is proved to have given a bribe to secure the position, that does not seat the contestor. This has been settled after discussion ten years ago in this Senate, and the person asking for the seat then did not claim it. There can not be a single case shown in the annals of legislative bodies where a man has been turned out and the man who ran against him the one turned out seated. This discussion ought not to have come at this early time. It has been brought to the notice of the Senate, by the solemn oath of a citizen, that a sitting member is disqualified by giving a bribe or offering a bribe-that we take notice of it on our own account entirely. If that be proved true the seat becomes vacant. That is the universal rule everywhere. The question of disqualification can be heard at the same time with the questions of contest, and therefore it is proper to adopt the resolution. In the case before the Senate ten or twelve years ago, not a single deposition was taken. Those friendly to the sitting member should not seek to stop the most full and fair investigation.
Mr. GRAHAM said the Senator from Johnson [Mr. Overstreet] cares nothing, personally, whether he retains the seat or not, though honestly and fairly elected to this body; but he cares for his reputatation, which is attacked in a manner not warranted by law and the facts in the case. The Committee can not find any ground for contest under the statute the specifications can not be sustained by evidence, even in the hands of a Democratic majority. It is attempted to bring in this case a charge of bribery, which is not a ground for contest. The arguments of Senators on the other side can not be understood until the vote shall be taken. The law making power ought to be as fair in dealing with citizens as the Courts of the land are. How long would this charge stand under a motion to quash? Not a Justice of the Peace in the land would allow a case to go to trial under a charge of this kind. If there is a charge of bribery in the paper referred to, it could have been made specifically. The charge is too indefinite, and for many reasons the resolution should not be adopted. Let this case be fairly tried, and tried only upon the questions in issue. Let not anything be irregularly tacked on a proceeding in a case of contest.
Mr. McCULLOCH. in reply to a question, stated the papers came regularly in the hands of the Committee, and whether the additional paper be considered as a memorial or an additional cause of contest, it is the duty of the Committee to ascertain the facts in the case. The question as to whether the contestor is entitled to a seat or not does not first arise; the first question is, can the grounds of contest be sustained? The subsequent paper came to the Committee in the regular way, and no resolution or request has been made for its return to the Senate. The two questions may be tried together. The matter is before the Committee. It is the duty of the Committee to investigate and report it, and then the Senate can act as it deems fit. The pending resolution goes to the charge of bribery. It won't do for the Senate to say when a charge is made that a member has been guilty of bribery that the Senate must not take action, nor should we simply convict the member on depositions; but rather we should send for witnesses and weigh testimony. It is due to the member against whom the charge is made that the Committee should have the witnessees meet the Senator face to face. We would favor brining the witnesses before the whole Senate that each member may weigh the testimony for himself.
Mr. SAYRE thought under the view presented by the Senator from Gibson [Mr. McColloch] the resolution should not be adopted. The supplemental charge is not a ground for contest. The investigation should not be had on the grounds before the Senate as no time, person or place is set forth. The forms of law should be observed here as well as in the Courts of Justice. The meanest tramp should not beheld on such a charge before the most incompetent Justice of the Peace in the State.
Mr. McCOLLOCH and Mr. BELL demanded the previous question, which was seconded by the Senate-yeas, 27; nays, 20-and under its operations the substitute was adopted by yeas, 26; nays, 20, and the resolution as amended was adopted without a division.
Mr. HENRY, when his name was called, saying he concurred in the position taken by the Senator from Jackson [Mr. Brown] that the charge of bribery ought to be investigated when properly presented, but considering that this charge ought not to go to the Committee on the original ground of contest, he should vote "no."
Mr. HOOVER, when his name was called, declined to vote because of his pair with the Senator from St. Joseph [Mr. Campbell, absent on account of sickness] on all political questions.
[On motion of Mr. MAGEE the courtesies of the Senate were extended to Hons. William McKee Dunn and John M. Foster.]
Mr. SPANN offered a resolution to instruct the Committee on Elections to make a separate report on the additional causes of contest charging Senator Overstreet with bribery, and hear full, complete and searching evidence on that charge, disconnected and independently of the contest now pending between Overstreet and Johnson.
Pending which, came the recess for dinner.
