As a member of the committee, I have never understood that the committee is going into that question.

Mr. BECK. We are entirely in accord, and I was simply trying to explain that of course the question of the final right of Frank L. Smith has no reference to the indefinite and continuing right of expulsion. The question is whether or not there is anything that would deny him his right to take the oath of office, on the face of his credentials, and if so whether there is anything, aliunde his credentials, which would justify the Senate in, not expelling him, but disqualifying him by reason of anything that has happened.

Senator KING. Your position is that the action of the Senate yesterday in refusing Mr. Smith the right to take the oath is not res adjudicata, but that this committee is to inquire into the matter as to whether or not he is entitled to take the oath, regardless of the action of the Senate yesterday.

Mr. BECK. Yes.

Senator KING. You do not regard that action of the Senate as having concluded the matter?

Mr. BECK. On the contrary, it seems to me that the resolution was admirably worded; and, apart from its departure from the precedents of the Senate in other matters, which it is not for me to justify or condemn, it seems to me to have had its ample justification in this respect, and that is that in the rough and tumble of a debate in the Senate the profound constitutional questions which underlie the matter now before the committee could not be discussed to advantage, at least until a committee of the Senate, which is charged with the duty of determining such questions, had given to it a more careful consideration than the Senate could and had made its report; and thereupon I assume, that the Senate can take up the question de novo, and determine, first, as the resolution so clearly says, whether upon the face of his credentials, and without respect to matters aliunde, he should be given his oath of office; and secondly, if he is given his oath of office, whether he should be disqualified.

In other words, I take it that the purposes of the resolution are simply these: That even if your committee should report to the Senate, and the Senate should subsequently determine that in obedience to the best precedents, on the face of these credentials, which I understand are beyond dispute, he should be given the oath of office and be allowed to face his accusers in the Senate on the floor of the Senate, nevertheless the Senate, in the desire to expedite the solution of the whole controversy, also wanted the opinion of this committee as to whether, the oath being thus administered, he should be disqualified by reason of facts that are not now before the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. The resolution reads as follows:

Resolved, That the question of the prima facie right of Frank L. Smith to be sworn in as a Senator from the State of Illinois, as well as his final right to a seat as such Senator, be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections; and until such committee shall report upon and the Senate decide such question and right, the said Frank L. Smith shall not be sworn in

And so forth.

The Senate has definitely decided, by this resolution, that until not only the question of prima facie right, but of final right, to a seat,

shall be determined by our committee, and it reports to the Senate, he shall not be permitted to occupy his seat.

Senator GEORGE. If I may be permitted to make this observation, this resolution is in the exact form of the resolution in the Roberts case in the House, and what was done under the Roberts resolution in that case I take it is a fair guide to what should be here done, and I think Mr. Beck has perhaps conceived the full force of the resolution. We are first to decide his prima facie right, and of course that will be one matter on which we will offer a recommendation or resolution; and also the final right is

Senator SMITH. Do we separate the two questions and make two reports? My understanding of this resolution is that we are to determine the one question, and then having determined that, before we take any action we are to determine his final right to a seat as the evidence may justify us, in view of what has transpired in the election.

Senator CARAWAY. That is, whether or not he is disqualified by

reason

Senator SMITH. Yes.

Senator CARAWAY. I do not think there is any dispute about that. Senator KING. My view, if I understood you, Senator Smith, would be this, that the resolution means that if this committee should determine that the credentials are sufficient to entitle him to be sworn in, and there is nothing appears to disqualify him, they could make a report recommending that he be sworn in, reserving the question of expelling him or excluding him, whichever view the committee may take, for further consideration; or they may consider the whole matter at the same time and make one final report. But there is nothing there that would preclude us, in my view, from dividing the report.

Senator CARAWAY. That is not my understanding of the resolution, that we are to determine now whether or not, under the whole statement of the case and the facts as we may find them, he is entitled to be admitted to the Senate.

The CHAIRMAN. Not only that, but the exact language of the resolution reads, "until such committee shall report upon and the Senate decide such question and right.”

Senator CARAWAY. Yes; I know.

The CHAIRMAN. I think that was the clear intention of the Senate. Senator CARAWAY. The prima facie right to take the seat on the credentials alone, was the thing that was denied him by the resolution, without action of this committee. Now, this committee is expected to examine the law and to hear what evidence anybody wants to offer touching the question of his right to sit in the Senate. Senator EDGE. You mean what evidence? Do you mean the evidence that the Reed Committee has already taken?

Senator CARAWAY. Yes; or any other evidence we might take along that line.

Senator DENEEN. I understand that he bases his final right to take his seat on the credentials offered by Governor Small. Those credentials are not in controversy?

Senator GEORGE. Oh, no.

Senator DENEEN. Those are the credentials he submitted.

Senator CARAWAY. Do you understand that the committee is empowered to go into the question of the election-and we all know what we are talking about there-the conditions that surrounded the primary election, and take into consideration all those things and determine whether he is entitled to a final seat?

Senator DENEEN. I do not understand that that was the intention of the resolution.

The CHAIRMAN. The resolution says that on the final right to take the seat it shall be referred to a credentials committee.

Senator CARAWAY. We have everything that you have on that question. We had it before the Senate.

Senator DENEEN. The other credentials are not submitted. Senator CARAWAY. Before the Senate we had all the facts that we could have had. That is, you would have had to examine the certificate on its four corners to determine whether it was correct in form, and that the Senate had the right to make this order. If that is so, there would be no committee to pass upon the question. We had everything we could have before the Senate when the credentials were offered to the Senate.

Senator NEELY. Mr. Chairman, I think it was unanimously admitted that at the close of the debate in the Senate nobody questioned the regularity of the credentials, upon the face of the document. Everyone says that the credentials are regular on their face. Senator SMITH. Yes. To sum it up in a word, this committee is charged with the responsibility of finally determining whether or not Mr. Smith will be allowed to come, either under the certificate or under the election.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. I do not agree to that proposition at all.

Senator KING. I suggest that we hear Mr. Beck and his associates as to what they wish to suggest, and then the committee can decide what they desire, under the resolution. Let us get their view and construction of it.

Senator WATSON. I would like to know whether this is an executive session or not. The newspaper men out here are anxious to know. The CHAIRMAN. At this preliminary meeting we do not want anybody else in. At this preliminary meeting we are going to find out what we are going to do finally.

Senator NEELY. I move that we proceed as in open executive session.

The CHAIRMAN. Pardon me, gentlemen; I think until we determine on our procedure, we had better make it an executive session; but if you desire, we will vote on that.

Senator EDGE. We can not keep it an executive session.

Senator NEELY. Let us vote, and see what the majority of the committee wants to do about it.

Senator EDGE. Everybody knows what is involved in this case. There is nothing to conceal. It is a matter that everybody knows. about.

Senator WATSON. I suppose in the matter of fixing a program, we might do that by ourselves, without anyone else present.

The CHAIRMAN. That is all we are doing now. We are not arguing the case; we are just determining how we will proceed.

Senator WATSON. That is purely executive, for the committee to consider; do you not think so?