Mr. Sumner. In a certain sense I should say it was.
Mr. Davis. When he qualified, did or did not his office have reference to the time of his election, and take its date from the date of his election?
Mr. Sumner. I should say in a certain sense it did. I have already said that he had the franking privilege, and I presume he was entitled to the emoluments of the place, such as they are; but had he not been qualified, he could not have drawn pay. It was only by taking the oath that he was entitled to pay from the Secretary of the Senate.
Mr. Davis. The Senator knows well, that, assuming his premises to be true, whenever the Senator from Kansas consummated his election by taking his seat and taking the oath of office, his term dated back to the date of his election.
Mr. Sumner. The Senator must pardon me, if I cannot assent to his conclusion. He may have been a Senator to a certain extent, but not so as to create incompatibility with another office under the Constitution.
January 15, Mr. Sumner cited two precedents,—the case of Hammond v. Herrick,[123] and that of Elias Earle of South Carolina.[124]
The marginal note of the latter says:—
“Continuing to execute the duties of an office under the United States, after one is elected to Congress, but before he takes his seat, is not a disqualification, such office being resigned prior to the taking of the seat.”
January 16, the seat of Mr. Lane was affirmed, contrary to the report of the Committee, by the vote of the Senate,—24 yeas to 16 nays.