Senator EDGE. Under article 2, in other words.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. BECK. Then it comes to this, that for reasons extraneous to the certificate, you are asked to deny the prima facie value of that certificate, and going further, to express your opinion to the Senate as to whether or not he should be finally denied his seat in the Senate; and when we are asked what these extraneous considerations are say it with all respect-they amount, in the last analysis, to little better than miasmatic innuendo. It is a fact that you would not in a police precinct convict a chicken thief

Senator CARAWAY. We are not going to argue that question now. Mr. BECK. All right; it is not the question now.

Senator CARAWAY. No.

Mr. BECK. But the question now is, that I think it is due to Colonel Smith, under the accepted principles of our jurisprudence, that there should be an accuser, and that the accuser should distinctly formulate wherein he has forfeited, by what acts he has forfeited, the office to which you all agree otherwise he is clearly entitled? Senator CARAWAY. I think you are right about that. Senator KING. May I interrupt you?

Mr. BECK. Certainly.

Senator KING. I presume we might just as well clear away all the rubbish-if I may use that expression-and get down to the fact. The fact is, if I understand it, that it is claimed by Senators that the record in the Reed investigation is before the Senate, that the Senate can take cognizance of that record, and that on that record it discloses facts which warrant the Senate, first in refusing to permit him to be seated, or, if they permitted him to be seated, warrants the Senate in either excluding or expelling him; and I presume, although I do not speak for anybody but myself, and I have an open mind on that, the theory is that that record is before us now, and is the indictment-if I may use the expression-of Mr. Smith; and that record is before us, or will be before us; and that it being before us, when we formally notify you that it is before us, if that is the view of the committee, then Mr. Smith would be entitled to make such defence as he pleases.

Mr. BECK. I assume that that would be so; and therefore, on the only question now before the committee, as to procedure, counsel for Colonel Smith venture to make this suggestion. It is a legal question, in the last analysis, even if you put the worst possible construction upon the facts elicited by the Reed committee, whether it is cause either for denying him the right to a seat on these credentials, or the final right, so far as disqualification is concerned. That is why I said at the beginning that the question of the ever-continuing right of expulsion is not in the picture. That is quite a different question. He would first have to be seated. The only question before the committee is, is he prima facie entitled to his seat; and secondly, can he be disqualified by reason of anything of which the Senate knows after this committee has reported?

Senator WATSON. That is a matter of argument.

Mr. BECK. Yes; I know.

Senator WATSON. You are arguing this. The indictment in this case does not have any reference to what we call the constitutional qualifications. The indictment has reference to the fact that, as the

Republican candidate for Senator and as chairman of the public utilities commission of Illinois, he accepted $125,000 from Samuel Insull. Now, is there any dispute as to that? Do you want to dispute the idea, or the thought, or the fact? If there is any evidence on that which you want to adduce here, contrary to the finding of the Reed committee, that is entirely proper and competent. But it is not necessary now to go into an argument as to whether or not that is sufficient to cause this committee

Mr. BECK. No, no; I did not intend to go into the argument now. On the contrary, the suggestion that I was about to make is this, namely, that the committee appoint a time convenient to it, to hear argument as to whether or not, on the face of the testimony before the Reed committee, there is anything that would deny his right, on the face of the credentials, or would justify his disqualification.

Senator EDGE. That is a very important question, whether we shall go just that far, or take the next step or not.

The CHAIRMAN. In the debate in the Senate, which lasted two days, it was conceded that Mr. Smith's credentials were in due and proper form. It was conceded that Mr. Smith had all the constitutional qualifications.

Notwithstanding that fact, the Senate refused to permit him to be sworn, and directed this committee to make a final finding as to whether or not he was entitled to his seat.

In my view of the case it would be a vain thing for us to report back to the Senate on the question of whether, upon the face of his credentials, he was entitled to be seated. Had they been of that opinion, I think that they would have permitted him to be seated then. I think we will not be discharging our duty unless we go further into the question and determine the matter upon the evidence which has already been taken and is now before the Senate.

Senator GEORGE. Mr. Chairman, in order to get the matter regularly in form

Mr. BECK. Will the Senator allow me to complete my statement? Perhaps I am wrong, but if you are going to make a motion, I would like to complete my statement.

The CHAIRMAN. The Senator can make his motion, and then you can make your statement.

Senator GEORGE. So that you may understand it, I move that the partial report of the special Senate committee, known as the Reed committee, be laid before this committee, together with the evidence upon which that report is based.

Senator EDGE. And you mean by that, that it be made a part of this record?

Senator GEORGE. I am not now asking that it be made a part of the record, because upon that Mr. Smith's cousel might wish to be heard; but I am moving that it be brought before the committee, and we then proceed with whatever suggestions and objections might be offered to that.

The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, you have heard the motion. Are there any remarks?

Senator SHORTRIDGE. One moment, Mr. Chairman, if you please. I do not think that that evidence is competent as tending to prove or disprove the right of Colonel Smith to be sworn in and to be a Member of the Senate under and by virtue of the credentials which

he has presented. I do not think that inquiry as to any act of his done before the appointment, by the Governor of the State of Illinois, is competent evidence, or in anywise serves to determine his right under the appointment.

It may well be that others radically differ from me in regard to that proposition of law. It may well be that it would do no harm to have it here in the record. But I wish to be understood, speaking very briefly and not giving my reasons, that that fact, if it be a fact, does not go to or tend to impair or take away his right to be one of the Senators from the State of Illinois under and by virtue of an appointment made by the governor, duly, as of a certain date, and under the facts, or the alleged facts, referred to, in the so-called Reed report.

Senator KING. Mr. Chairman, I shall vote for the motion, but in voting for that I am not committing myself to the proposition that that evidence supports or negatives any proposition. I think that it is evidence which the committee is entitled to. As to whether or not it is sufficient inherently, or otherwise, collaterally, to justify denying Mr. Smith a seat, or expelling him if he were in, I express no opinion.

In the Gould case the other day we admitted into the record testimony more or less hearsay, regarding a decision by a court of New Brunswick. As to the effect of that testimony when we shall come to the consideration of the entire question, that is another matter; but we admitted it, and it is before the committee. I think that this record should be before this committee, because, obviously, it was upon the record of the Reed committee investigation that the Senate acted, and acted adversely, upon Mr. Smith's case. Therefore I shall vote for the motion.

Senator WATSON. That is my view. As a matter of cold-blooded law, I think that the statement made by Senator Shortridge is absolutely right. Under the constitutional precedents I can not have any other view. But it is quite obvious that the Senate acted on the testimony taken before the Reed special committee, and therefore I think that evidence should be brought here, and that we should have it before us.

Senator GEORGE. Mr. Chairman, if I may be permitted to say, I merely suggested that as the basis of our procedure and inquiry here, that our record be made first by incorporating into it the certificate of the Governor of Illinois, under which Mr. Smith presented himself and offered to take the oath, and that as a basis of our inquiry here, and reserving to Mr. Smith any objection that he may wish to urge or offer, the partial report of the so-called Reed investigating committee, which as I understand it incorporates the evidence upon which it is based, be also inserted in the record.

The CHAIRMAN. You make that motion as a substitute for the motion you made before?

Senator GEORGE. Yes.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Mr. Chairman, since I briefly expressed a thought or two, permit me to supplement, by a word only. I indicated, I think, that it might come in; but from what I said I wish to be understood as holding, subject to argument hereafter I may be in error, but I now wish to be understood as holding that this testimony offered, which is hereafter to be offered, this record, is

entirely immaterial; is not competent for any purpose which we have in mind. And moreover, and finally, I do not understand that this committee is precluded from a full discussion of the questions involved, by virtue of the action of the Senate. Indeed, it is easy to read here in this resolution that the Senate desire, perhaps, the matured and deliberate judgment of this committee, for it is directed to inquire into the matter, as it were de novo, and after inquiry to report to the Senate. Therefore I think that we are at full liberty to discuss the matter, and consider the matter unembarrassed by any action of the Senate on the question.

Senator SMITH. Mr. Chairman, before I vote, may I ask Senator George his idea as to this report. Is it that as the Senate puts this Reed report as the basis of its action, we simply lay it here along with the certificate of the governor, and then in our subsequent investigation determine whether or not the evidence in that report is germane, or that we will admit it here as a part of our procedure in determining the final disposition of the case?

Senator GEORGE. That is simply a suggestion; that it be made a part of the basis of our inquiry, reserving to Mr. Smith every right to object.

Senator DENEEN. Mr. Chairman, we are here, I assume, to discuss procedure.

Senator GEORGE. Yes.

Senator DENEEN. I do not think we should foreclose these gentlemen until the decision is made on the procedure. I do not think any testimony should be submitted until a charge is formulated and these gentlemen have an opportunity to consult together and determine what course they will pursue.

Senator EDGE. Mr. Chairman, from a layman's standpoint it would seem to me that we will have to determine, in this committee, just what is meant by these words:

the question of the prima facie right of Senator Smith to be sworn in as a Senator from the State of Illinois, as well as his final right to take a seat as such Senator.

In other words-not taking issue with the view expressed by Mr. Beck, at all; I do not feel qualified to discuss it from a legal standpoint-does it mean that we are to consider the justification of the charges brought in by the Reed committee, and possibly to decide whether that would, in effect, furnish sufficient proof to us to recommend that he should not be received, or if he were a Member, that he should be expelled?

I am not presenting that as my view, but I think we have got to decide whether these charges are sufficiently grave that we shall report back to the Senate that we feel that he is or is not properly qualified to be a Member of the Senate.

Senator KING. Mr. Chairman, if I have not expressed myself-it is quite unimportant whether I did or not-I want to say that I think those charges, if you call them charges, which are contained in the Reed Report, are before the Senate. I think that this committee can take judicial cognizance of them; and I think it is entirely proper that they should be laid before us, and this motion of Judge George contemplates that they should be laid before us.

Now, when these are laid before us, it seems to me we could very properly say to Mr. Beck and the other counsel of Colonel Smith,

"Here are the charges, if you call them charges, that are before the Senate; and doubtless, upon those charges the Senate acted in denying to Mr. Smith his right to be sworn in."

Senator EDGE. And in formulating that resolution.

Senator KING. Yes. And we could possibly say, "Now, Mr. Smith, do you desire to add anything to that testimony? Do you desire to meet this testimony, or are you satisfied to let the committee, upon the record which is before it, pass upon the merits of this case as called for in the resolution?"

The committee would doubtless have authority to go further and make further investigation. They could summon more witnesses if they were dissatisfied with the testimony there-if it was not definite they could subpoena witnesses and make such investigation as they saw fit; or, if they wished to, they could just content themselves by going over the charges and the testimony there, and considering such testimony as Mr. Smith desired to offer, if any, and such observations as his counsel wished to make, and then make decision.

I think we might just as well wipe away all the rubbish and get down to "brass tacks."

Senator EDGE. I am trying to get at what they are.

Senator KING. If you introduce this report, the finding, the testimony, or whatever you please, that is what the Senate acted upon. I think those charges should be brought before the committee and then we shall tell Colonel Smith, "Here is the report of this committee. Have you anything to say in respect to that matter? If you have, the committee will hear you. If you object to it, point out your objections. If you think the committee ought not to consider that testimony because it is irrelevant, because it is immaterial, because it is too remote, or it is not connected with any matter or any thing or act or conduct of Colonel Smith since his appointment, we will hear the argument"; and that if we shall finally decide that it is properly before us, we can consider it, and do so with reference to his appointment, and then formulate our decision.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion. Are you ready for the question?

(The question was taken and the motion was agreed to.)

The CHAIRMAN. The "ayes" seem to have it; the "ayes" have it, and it is so ordered.

Now, gentlemen, let me add, several of the Senators have expressed their opinions. I am clearly of opinion that Mr. Smith is entitled to his seat; that he ought to have it; that he ought to have been sworn in when his credentials were presented. I have no question in my own mind about that. But what is before us now is interpreting what this resolution really means, and in view of the discussion in the Senate, with which we are all familiar, it can mean but one thing, and that is that we are to take up the question and look into the facts, such as have been laid before the special committee, and report as to whether or not we think Mr. Smith is entitled to his seat, in view of what is disclosed there or what may be hereafter disclosed concerning Mr. Smith. I think it is clearly our duty to do that.

Senator SMITH. In the language of a layman, we have now accepted the report of that special committee as practically an indictment and charge against; and in that, so far as it goes, is the basis of this investigation; and we have to determine whether or not, upon the investi