gation of these charges as contained in this report, and from any subsequent facts that we may see fit to bring out, and we are to reach our final conclusion, as to his fitness for a seat. Is that the ground upon which we are going, now? The CHAIRMAN. It is up to the committee. Senator EDGE. It is the subject of further interpretation, I would say, speaking for myself, as very clearly demonstrated by Senator King. I think we still have before us the decision to make, as to just how far that evidence would apply, in considering our duty under the resolution. Senator SMITH. But it is the basis of our initial investigation? Senator GEORGE. It is the basis of our inquiry. It is to be considered, with what evidence shall be taken in addition. There is another matter that we have apparently, pretermitted, and that is whether we shall proceed with the whole committee, or whether there shall be a subcommittee appointed. We have simply waived that aside. Senator KING. I move that this be heard in the committee as a whole. Senator SHORTRIDGE. I agree with you. Mr. BECK. May I submit one further thought; because I had not completed the statement I was making by the courtesy of the committee. Now, that it has been ascertained, as far as I can understand it, that in the absence of any notice to Colonel Smith, the charges which are deemed to be cause for disqualification are those in the Reed Committee certainly we know of no other then I want to suggest and respectfully ask in Colonel Smith's behalf that a time be set when the full committee can hear argument upon the probative force of the testimony before the Reed Committee, and what legal effect it could possibly have upon his right to a seat in the United States Senate. If the committee should, after such argument, reach the conclusion that, giving it the fullest probative force, and putting the worst possible aspect upon the testimony, nevertheless it does not disqualify Colonel Smith from being a Senator from Illinois, then, of course, there would be no occasion for Colonel Smith to go further. If, however, you should reach the conclusion on your estimate of that evidence that it did disqualify him under some clause of the Constitution, then we would ask the opportunity to offer testimony to show that the probative force of that testimony is easily susceptible to explanation. But it is not necessary, and it seems to me it would be a waste of the time of the committee, for Colonel Smith to call witnesses from Chicago and elsewhere in Illinois to come here until you first determine whether, giving the worst possible interpretation to the Reed Committee report, it in any way affects his right to seat as a Senator from Illinois. In suggesting that we should make this argument before the full committee, I appreciate the fact that it was discussed with great ability and at length in the Senate, and also that I have already, in the printed page, submitted my views in extenso. Senator KING. That is, in the Vare case? Mr. BECK. No, not in the Vare case at all. That is quite a misapprehension. I wrote my little contribution upon this subject, which some Senators may have read, to try to do a public service. Why I am anxious for the full committee to hear this argumentand this need not take more than a morning The CHAIRMAN. I think we would be very glad to hear your argument. Mr. BECK. I have certain suggestions to make that were not brought out in the debate in the Senate, or in my monograph on the subject, which go far to explain the meaning of the Constitution as to what was a qualification; and moreover, it is a very extraordinary fact, and I commend it to the committee for its consideration because no allusion was made to it in the Senate, an attempt is made to disqualify Smith The CHAIRMAN. If you will just pardon me a moment, I would say that you are arguing when the court is with you. We are going to give you this opportunity for argument. Therefore I do not see why it is necessary to delay. Gentlemen, are you ready for the question as to whether this shall be heard by a subcommittee or by the entire committee? I sincerely hope that it will be heard by the entire committee. I think we will save much time by it. (The question was taken and the motion was unanimously agreed to.) The CHAIRMAN. The "ayes" have it, unanimously. Now, when will it suit you, or when would it suit the committee, to hear argument? Senator KING. Mr. Chairman, we have a very voluminous record of the special committee. I have hastily examined the record, but not with the fullness I should like, and before we hear arguments on the value of that testimony we ought to know just what the testimony is. I would like to have two or three days to go through that evidence. Senator WATSON. I would like to know, first, whether or not the evidence before the Reed Committee, is accepted here, or whether it is going to be disputed? Is it so, or is it not? Do you intend to offer any testimony at all as to the truthfulness of the testimony of the Reed Committee? In other words, are you going to demure to the evidence? Mr. BECK. We are asking preliminary argument upon this, because if the committee should reach a conclusion that on review of that evidence before the Reed committee it would be a cause for disqualification, I think we can very much break its force by testimony. But there is no use in bringing to this city every member of the Public Utilities Commission of Illinois to show how unwarranted is the assumption that Colonel Smith sold any cases. There is another side to this story, and a big side. Senator EDGE. Is not that the second step-the question of reviewing the Reed testimony? Is not the first step an argument? The CHAIRMAN. We are now trying to determine upon our first meeting time. Would Wednesday morning be convenient, in this room? Senator EDGE. We were ordered to do this expeditiously. I should say we ought not to put it off long. The CHAIRMAN. Here is one trouble. Many members of our committee are engaged, as a subcommittee, in considering the Gould matter. Senator KING. We will take that up on Monday and Tuesday. The CHAIRMAN. They have to be given time, and we need their counsel here. They will certainly be busy Monday and Tuesday. Mr. BECK. Would it not be better for the committee to meet next Saturday morning, when you would not have the Senate in session? The CHAIRMAN. No, I think we should have a meeting prior to that time, because we have been asked to expedite this matter. Senator NEELY. In view of the fact that Mr. Smith's attorney has suggested that we meet Saturday, and certainly nobody is more interested in speeding this case than Mr. Smith, I move that we make it Saturday morning. Mr. CARLSTROM. Senator, if I may be permitted to say, my thought is this. My associate counsel and myself are here representing the State of Illinois, and we would like to save all the time we can. The Attorney General has many things to do at home. I suggest that if possible we meet Thursday. It seems to me that should meet with the approval of General Beck. Mr. BECK. In the first place, if any argument of mine is to be of any value, I should make a careful study of this testimony. I want to do that, just as Senator King does. Nevertheless, this committee has been so courteous that I must meet its views. But how would it do to let Attorney General Carlstrom make his statement on Thursday, and let me make my statement later, on the legal aspect of the underlying questions? Mr. CHAIRMAN. Would that meet with the approval of the Attorney General? Mr. CARLSTROM. I would prefer not to speak before General Beck, because he is handling, as a personal matter, Colonel Smith's case. The CHAIRMAN. If there be no objection, we will meet Saturday morning at 10 o'clock. Senator NEELY. Mr. Chairman, just a moment before you decide this. I would like to have the reporter read the statement made at the opening of this meeting, by Mr. Beck. It struck me as a very significant statement, and I would like to have it read. (The reporter read as follows:) I desire to say, if the committee will permit me, with respect to my appearance for Col. Frank L. Smith, that he wrote me about 10 days ago in the city of Chicago and asked me to represent his interests, and I accepted the employment, not as a professional employment or in the spirit of professional employment, but in a desire to be of whatever public service I could in the matter, which I am sure the whole committee will agree is of profound import. Senator NEELY. Mr. Beck, in view of that statement, as one of the committee, I want to know just what your relation to the proceeding is. Do you mean for the committee to understand that you are acting here now simply as a friend to the committee, or as a friend to the Government, and in a voluntary and unpaid capacity, or are you appearing as a paid lawyer for Colonel Smith. Mr. BECK. That is a perfectly fair question, and the Senator shall have a reply. The only reason that I volunteered that statement was, that my friend Senator Walsh of Montana seemed to think that the force of any argument I made in my monograph, "The Vanishing Rights of the States," was lessened because I was counsel for Mr. Vare. As a matter of fact, I have taken a fr endly interest in this question from the beginning, because I have been always interested in con stitutional problems. Colonel Smith, about 10 days ago, asked me whether I would represent him, and asked me what my fees would be, and I said to him, "Colonel, there will never be any bill from me; I would never accept any compensation. I have profound sympathy with what I conceive to be your rights in the matter, and if I can be of any service to you, it will be without any compensation whatever." I mentioned that only because I do not want whatever little force my monograph may have had in at least interesting the people to be lessened by it being regarded as a brief for anybody. Senator NEELY. Indeed, the monograph of which Mr. Beck speaks, I think is very able and very illuminating, and is entitled to a very great deal of consideration. I read it with deep interest myself; and, frankly, I thought that I was reading the brief of a paid attorney; and that is just what I wanted to ascertain, whether I should consider that brief as the brief of a paid lawyer in the case, or whether I should take it as the opinion of a great constitutional lawyer, which we all recognize that Mr. Beck is, and as a contribution that was made because of his interest in the perpetuity of our present form of Government. Now, in order to do complete justice to the subject, may I ask one more question, and I shall not press for a reply to this, because I do not feel that I should have any right to. Mr. Beck, what do you say as to your representing Colonel Smith without compensation? Personally, I think that will add to the weight of the argument you have made and that you will subsequently submit. Does that also apply to your present, past, or prospective relations to the Vare case? I Mr. BECK. Absolutely. I have never received a penny of compensation for any professional service as a lawyer in this controversy. I expect none, and so far as I know, I never would take any. certainly have no agreement or understanding to be paid as counsel for either Vare or Smith. I am in this controversy because I think it is a life and death struggle for constitutional government. Senator WATSON. I would like to ask a question. This testimony before the Reed Committee is quite voluminous. If that testimony is going to be disputed-contradicted-I would like to know it. I do not want to wade through all this testimony with a view of just reading it. I know enough of it now to understand its salient features. Senator KING. Senator, may I interrupt you? Senator WATSON. Yes. Senator KING. It seems to me that under the statement of General Beck we have got to accept this testimony as the truth, on his demurrer to its competency, relevancy, or its probative value. Senator WATSON. That is just what I wanted to know. Senator KING. Then he says if we shall, after having heard his argument, say that it is sufficient to justify an opinion one way or another, then they may want to explain some of it. Senator EDGE. That is the way I understand it. We do not come to that bridge yet. Senator KING. They make no admission that it is true, but for the purposes of the argument it is true. (Thereupon, at 11.15 o'clock a. m., the committee adjourned until Saturday, January 29, 1927, at 10 o'clock a. m.) SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS SATURDAY, JANUARY 29, 1927 UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS, Washington, D. C. The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 o'clock a. m. in the room of the Committee on Privileges and Elections in the Capitol, Senator Richard P. Ernst presiding. Present: Senators Ernst (chairman), Shortridge, Greene, Deneen, Goff, Edge, King, George, Neely, Smith, and Caraway. There appeared before the committee Oscar E. Carlstrom, attorney general of the State of Illinois, Cyrus E. Dietz, assistant attorney general of the State of Illinois; and on behalf of Frank L. Smith personally, James M. Beck, Cornelius J. Doyle, and James G. Condon; and Mr. Frank L. Smith. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will please come to order. General Beck, will you proceed. ARGUMENT OF JAMES M. BECK Mr. BECK. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, when the committee met last Saturday Colonel Smith was unable to be present. He was in the hands of doctors. He has been ill ever since, and against the advice of his physicians, has come from his home in Illinois to attend this meeting out of respect to this committee. I mention the fact, so that if he feels too ill to remain during the whole proceedings, the committee will understand that he is an ill man, and that his departure is in no sense due to lack of respect for the committee. Senators, I want you to "hear me for my cause," and " censure me in your wisdom." I know that no such invocation is necessary, for a very good reason. In the first place, there is no man on this committee who can feel anything but sympathy for a man who made such a brave, valorous fight, both in the primary and the election, against seemingly overwhelming obstacles, and as to whose title, so far as the fairness of election, in both the primary and the general election in Illinois is concerned, no possible question has been or could be raised. I think it is just to Colonel Smith to say that whatever may be the action of this committee or of the United States Senate hereafter, he has had his vindication at the hands of his party associates in the primary, and at the hands of the people of Illinois in the general election by great majorities. That is the verdict of the vicinage, of those who have known him from boyhood to manhood, and it is the 17 |