[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 2, Chapters 7 - 9]
[Chapter 9.  Election Contests]
[M. Summaries of Election Contests, 1931-72]
[Â§ 53. Seventy-ninth Congress, 1945-46]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 1174-1177]
 
                               CHAPTER 9
 
                           Election Contests
 
               M. SUMMARIES OF ELECTION CONTESTS, 1931-72
 
Sec. 53. Seventy-ninth Congress, 1945-46

Sec. 53.1 Hicks v Dondero

    On Dec. 12, 1945, Mr. O. C. Fisher, of Texas, submitted the 
unanimous report (7) of the Committee on Elections No. 3 in 
the contest of John W. L. Hicks against George A. Dondero, from the 
17th Congressional District of Michigan. The contest had originated in 
the House on July 20, 1945, on which date the Speaker had laid before 
the House a letter from the Clerk (8) relating that his 
office had received packets of material which had not been addressed to 
the Clerk or adduced in the ``manner contemplated by the provisions of 
the statutes.'' The Clerk had also received contestee's motion to 
dismiss the contest and contestant's affidavit in opposition to that 
motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. H. Rept. No. 1404, 91 Cong. Rec. 11931, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.; H. 
        Jour. 766.
 8. H. Doc. No. 264, 91 Cong. Rec. 7877, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.; H. Jour. 
        542, 543.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Clerk's letter related that ``since this action has not 
proceeded in accordance with the provisions of the statutes, the Clerk 
is transmitting all of the material received in this matter to the 
House for its disposition.'' The Speaker referred the Clerk's letter to 
the Committee on Elections No. 3 and ordered it printed as a House 
document.
    The committee's final report stated that contestant had not taken 
any testimony in support of his notice of contest within the time 
prescribed by law. The report then stated:

        The contestant submitted two copies of transcripts of 
    proceedings before the Wayne County, Mich., canvassing board on 
    November 10, 11, and 30, 1944, which hearings were held on dates 
    prior to the initiation of this contest. . . .
        The said transcripts of evidence were entirely ex parse insofar 
    as contestee was concerned, and even if properly transmitted, would 
    be incompetent as proof of any issues urged by contestant.

    The report stated that contestee had been elected on Nov. 7, 1944, 


[[Page 1175]]

by a majority of 28,475 votes over contestant, and had been properly 
certified as elected.

    On Dec. 12, 1945, the day of submittal of the committee report, Mr. 
Fisher called up as privileged House Resolution 455 (9) 
which incorporated the language recommended in the report. House 
Resolution 455 was agreed to by voice vote and without debate, and it--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 91 Cong. Rec. 11922, 11923, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.; H. Jour. 766.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That the election contest of John W. L. Hicks, 
    contestant, against George A. Dondero, contestee, Seventeenth 
    Congressional District of the State of Michigan, be dismissed, and 
    that the said George A. Dondero is entitled to his seat as a 
    Representative of said district and State.

    Note: Syllabi for Hicks v Dondero may be found herein at Sec. 6.12 
(items transmitted by Clerk); Sec. 25.1 (failure to properly forward 
evidence); Sec. 27.2 (dismissal for failure to take testimony within 
statutory period); Sec. 34.3 (evidence from ex parse proceedings).

Sec. 53.2 In re Plunkett

    On Feb. 14, 1945, Mr. Hatton W. Sumners, of Texas, was granted 
unanimous consent to address the House of Representatives for one 
minute. His speech, a letter inserted in the Record by him, and the 
ensuing debate, are as follows: (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 91 Cong. Rec. 1083, 1084, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Sumners of Texas: Mr. Speaker, comparatively recently a 
    private citizen in Virginia has entered upon a course of conduct 
    claiming he is contesting the seats of, I believe, 71 Members of 
    the House of Representatives. A colleague of mine the other day 
    asked me to make some examination and write him a letter. I made 
    that examination and have written him the following letter:
                                                February 12, 1945.

            My Dear Colleague: Supplementing the statement made to you 
        over the telephone this morning with reference to notice to 
        appear and give testimony in proceeding by Moss A. Plunkett, of 
        Roanoke, Va., representing himself as contesting your right to 
        a seat in the House of Representatives, beg to advise that I 
        have looked over a copy of the paper served upon you and other 
        Members of the House of Representatives, including myself, and 
        have also made some examination of chapter 7, title 2, of the 
        United States Code, which deals with the subject of contested 
        elections.
            The House of Representatives, under the Constitution, of 
        course, is sovereign and independent with reference to the 
        determination of the election and the qualification of its own 
        Members. No act of Congress could, in the slightest degree, 
        affect the exclusiveness of power of the House of 
        Representatives to determine with reference to those who are 
        entitled to be a part of its membership.
            Section 7 of title 2 referred to therefore is merely an act 
        of comity 

[[Page 1176]]


        on the part of the Congress for the purpose of aiding 
        the House of Representatives to whatever degree the House of 
        Representatives may see fit to avail itself thereof. But this 
        alleged contestant, Moss A. Plunkett, does not even come within 
        the provision of this title.
            Section 226, the last section of chapter 7, title 2, 
        referred to, contains these words as the first part of the 
        first sentence:
            ``No contestee or contestant for a seat in the House of 
        Representatives shall be paid exceeding $2,000 for expenses in 
        election contests.''
            The contest contemplated by the Congress in which it sought 
        to give aid by statute is a contest by a ``contestant'' and 
        ``contestee,'' ``for a seat in the House of Representatives.''
            Even if this language were not incorporated in the statute, 
        common sense and public necessity would preclude any notion 
        that the Congress intended to put it within the power of any 
        person so disposed to institute proceedings to oust many 
        persons who happen to be Members of Congress, and require them 
        to turn aside from the discharge of their public duties to 
        appear and give testimony at the summons of such a person who 
        had not even been a candidate for Congress and who could not 
        therefore be a ``contestant for a seat in the Congress.''
            It seems to me to be not only the right, but the duty, of 
        the Members of the House against whom this proceeding has been 
        attempted, not to turn aside from the discharge of their 
        official duties to give attention in the slightest degree to 
        that which the said Plunkett is attempting.
                                                  Sincerely yours,
                                                Hatton W. Sumners.

        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, will 
    the gentleman yield?

        Mr. Sumners: I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
        Mr. McCormack: Will the gentleman advise the House how, in his 
    opinion, this unreasonable situation should be met?
        Mr. Sumners: By paying no attention to it.
        The Speaker: (11) The time of the gentleman from 
    Texas has expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Mississippi?
        There was no objection.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, following up what the Member from 
    Texas [Mr. Sumners], the very able chairman of the Committee on the 
    Judiciary, has said, I want to call attention to the fact these 
    radicals who are attempting to harass Members of Congress about 
    this matter [poll taxes] have not a leg to stand on. They really 
    are acting in contempt of the House, and in contempt of the Senate, 
    because they have attempted to subpena Senators, as well as Members 
    of the House.
        This question has been thrashed out before. The fourteenth 
    amendment to the Constitution provided that where certain people 
    were denied the right to vote in any State, representation from 
    such State should be proportionately reduced. . . .
        If there is anything wrong with the State law, the place to 
    contest it is in the courts. If there is anything wrong with a 
    Member's right to sit in this House, the place to contest it is 
    before a committee of the House. . . .


[[Page 1177]]

        So these attempts to harass the Members of the House and Senate 
    are simply in contempt of both Houses, and as the chairman of the 
    Judiciary Committee [Mr. Sumners] said, they should be ignored.

    On May 17, 1945, the Speaker laid before the House a letter from 
the Clerk (12) of the House which stated that the Clerk 
``does not regard the said Moss A. Plunkett as a person competent to 
bring a contest for a seat in the House under the provisions of the 
laws governing contested elections.'' Mr. Plunkett was attempting to 
contest the election of 79 returned Members from districts of various 
states, growing out of the election held Nov. 7, 1944, though it 
appeared from the four sealed packages of testimony that Mr. Plunkett 
had not been party to any of the elections. The Clerk's letter was 
ordered printed by the Speaker as a House document, and referred to the 
Committee on Elections No. 1. There is no record that the committee 
submitted a report in this case, or that the House acted in any way 
upon the contest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. H. Doc. No. 181, 91 Cong. Rec. 4726, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.; H. Jour. 
        347.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Note: Syllabi for In re Plunkett may be found herein at Sec. 5.1 
(committee jurisdiction over contest under contested election 
statutes); Sec. 6.6 (items transmitted by Clerk); Sec. 19.6 
(contestants as candidates in general election).