The Pittsburgh Press (December 13, 1946)
Background of news –
Two cases against Bilbo
By R. M. Boeckel
The Senate will have two reports on Sen. Bilbo before it when it meets on January 3.
The special Campaign Investigating Committee is preparing a report on charges that Negro citizens were intimidated and barred from participation in the Mississippi primary at which Bilbo won the 1946 senatorial nomination. The special War Investigating Committee will report on charges that Bilbo received large money payments and other favors from war contractors in 1941 and 1942. Democrats hold a majority of the places on each committee, but their findings will be acted upon by a Senate controlled by Republicans.
Sen. Ellender (D-Louisiana), chairman of the Campaign Investigating Committee, predicted after last week’s hearings in Mississippi that the committee’s report would clear Bilbo of all charges. Earlier he had characterized the movement against Bilbo as a Republican plot to capture the Negro vote and an “unwarranted attack on the sovereign state of Mississippi.”
Chairman Kilgore (D-West Virginia) of the War Investigating Committee has made no forecast of his committee’s conclusions.
Ample precedent
In the unlikely event of a majority report from the Ellender committee questioning the integrity of Bilbo’s election, there would be ample precedent for forcing the senator to “stand aside” when he appears to take the oath for his new term, pending floor consideration of his case by the Senate.
An adverse report from the Kilgore committee, questioning the senator’s personal integrity, probably would not result in barring the senator “at the door.” Under the precedents in cases of this sort, he would be allowed to take the oath “without prejudice,” subject to a future trial by the Senate.
The most recent case under the second head was that of Sen. Langer (R-North Dakota) who was charged by the Senate Privileges and Elections Committee in 1942 with “gross impropriety, lawlessness, shot-gun law enforcement, violation of oath as attorney, rabble rousing, civil disobedience, breach of the peace, obstruction of the administration of justice and tampering with court officials.”
Past conduct well known
In the prolonged debate on the floor, it was emphasized that all of the offenses charged against Langer – if they had in fact occurred – were committed long before he became a candidate for the Senate. His past conduct was well known to the voters at the time he was chosen, and it was argued that the Senate had no right to reverse the judgment of the electorate and deprive North Dakota of Langer’s services as a senator. On the final roll call 52 senators supported Langer’s claim to his seat and only 30 voted against him.
In Bilbo’s case it can similarly be argued that his public record, covering a period of more than 35 years, was well known to the voters of Mississippi, that the war contract charges were aired during the 1946 campaign, and that the Senate has no more right in this case than in the Langer case to set aside the verdict of the voters.
The Senate has been loath to expel for offenses committed before a member’s election unless directly connected with the electoral processes. It has proceeded with vigor, however, when a senator has been shown to have committed illegal acts during the term for which he was elected. In most such cases, the member has resigned rather than face expulsion.