Datasets:

Eugleo

/

us-congressional-speeches

like 0

The point of order was not talon at that time.

S

Mr. FERRY. of Connecticut

Unknown

FERRY

Connecticut

M

03191873.txt

I desire that this resolution may share the fate of other resolutions of a similar nature. and. in order that the point of order may be discussed. I ask leave to enter an appeal from the decision of the Chair. and I shall call up the appeal at some other time.

S

Mr. ALCORN

Unknown

ALCORN

Unknown

M

03191873.txt

The appeal will be entered.

S

The VICE-PRESIDENT

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

03191873.txt

Iask that an order be made authorieing the Secrctary of the Senate to deliver to the commissioners of claims the papers of Madame E. liertiuetto. Charles A. Ware. Ware & Lacy. and William Bailey. In masking this motion I wish to state that I have not examined the question whether the commissioners of claims have a right to grant a rehearing to parties. and I make this motion at their request. that they may decide that question. and. if they see proper. grant a rehearing in these four cases.

S

Mr. SCOTT

Unknown

SCOTT

Unknown

M

03191873.txt

Mr. President. among the evils of our times. few are so hurtful. few should be so odious. as the pollution of elections. Stuffing ballotboxes. employing gangs of repeaters. falsifying counts. forging returns. belying and defiling elections. whether in legislatures or elsewhere. by bribery and other venal appliancesall these must lit eradicated if free institutions are to be unsullied and secure. If the comnmittee. in thecase at bar. has shown us how to strilee a lawful blow at this abuse in any of its forms. that blow ought to fall. crush whoin it may. "More sinned against than sinning. though he be. the fate of an individual is but an incident. I had almost said a trivial incident. in the matter which proceeds today. But we must keep within the law. IfwOgo eyondit. weourselveshbecone usurpers and ministers of wrong. Jf we trample on the law. we become enemies of order and of public right. be our purpose good or bad. We are not to do evil that good may conme. We perform a grave. nay. a solemn. jumliial duty. We are to steel our hearts against sympathy and emotion on the one side. and be deaf to applause and clamor on the other. We are to hold with unfevered hand the exact scales. knowing nothing. hearing nothing. seeing nothing but the law and the evidence. We are not to make the law. but only to administer it. we are so sworn. What is the law of this case ? What is the warrant which measures our action I Were the resolution one of expulsion. the question -would be radically different. Our action then would appeal to that great right inherent in everybody. not in nations. masses. or parliaments alone. but in every human being. a right found in the first law of nature. the right of selfpreservation and selfdefense. Chief Justice Shaw. in the case cited from 3d Gray. has tell us that there exists inherentlyiu every legislative body the right to preserve. protect. and purge itself. Reason tells us so. The Constitution tells us so. Iiere is the text: Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings. rumsh its members for disorderly behavior. and. with Cho rensresice of twothirds. expel a member. The majority of the committee has not invited or permitted us to proceed under this power. The discussion has been kept away from illustrating this right. and ascertaining whether the case at bar falls within it. We are summoned to interpret and exert a widely different power. and in order to adopt the resolution before us. we must interpret and exert a. power as it was never interpreted before in either House of Congress. or elsewhere. in the lifetime of the Republic. No word of history. judicial or parliamentary. no decisicn. no suggestion. no recorded authority. has been found in favor of the action now invoked. In March. 1871. Mr. C&TrWELLentered time Senate. Us was regularly received and sworn in. Ile has ever since sat as a Senator. voted as a Senator. acted as a Senator. received the pay of a Senator. and exercised all the privileges of a Senator. His credentials are without flaw. and lie posseeses every qualification of a Senator known to the Constitutiou. and therefore every qualification which we have the right to exact. The legislature of Kansas. by a majority of twentyfive above the rqluired nmber. and of fiftynce over all his competitors. elected Mr. CAmnuviwEr Senator. at the time and place. and in the manoier. required by law. Every one who voted had the right to vote. as a member of the legislature of Kansas. and to vote in time. place. and manner as lie did vote. Every one voted intentionally. the votes were lonestlycounted and legally retarned. And now. after more than two years. wye are asked to declare that. in troth. Mr. CVLDIVEr.L was never elected at all. that io election took place in KansmaS in 167 1. and that in law the seat has been vacant all the time. Upon what ground are we asked to pronounce this tangled. incoherent. and repugnant juudgIneit? Upon the ground that it is now believed by a majority of the committee that "some nienebur of the legislature of Kansas" (these are the words of the report) were at heart actuated in giving their votes byinspure and sordid motives. Such is thejudgment we are asked to pronounce. such is the ground upon which it must rest. I cannot so pronounce. my oath. as I understand it. forbids me. This. after much serious reflection. is my conviction. a conviction lid in abeyanco until the discussion. day by day. established it. a conviction which will be surrendered whenever I am able to discover its error. One of Romes famous maxims was. "Let what each man thinks of the republic be written on his brow." In the spirit of this injunction. it is fitting for every Senator. in a proceeding like this. to avow his opinion and his reasons. Awl so I venture to state. more or less in frill. the reasons which convince me. the Jonstitution declares that the Senate shall be the judge of the elections. qualifications. and returns of its members. What does this mean ? It means that the power to judge. is deposited here. It means nothing touching the scope or nature of the power to judge. It ere-. ares nothing . it invents nothing. It locates with us the judicial power in such cases. that is all. It lodges the power to judge. not elsewhere. bu here. It withdraws from the judicial departuient .a certain portion of judicial power. and reposes it with us. Suppose it had been ordained that "the Supreme Court slall be the judge of the elections. returns. and qualifications of Senators." would the power then be greater. or less. or different? The Constitution only names the depository of the power. it deals with an existing. known. and certain thing. and says it shall reside here. I say a knownu and certain thing. because that is certain in law which can be rendered certain. and that is known which can be ascertained and deterinloed by the law. Must we not judge as a court would judge? Must not a court judge under the lawnot under the law. as my learned friend from Ohio [Mr. Tnuie xiw] intimated. as it hatppenel to be at the moment of the adoption of the Constitution . but under the law as the law is met the time wheo the judgmenet is to be given . Is not this a court? The Constitution says: The Senate shall lavo the sols power to try ll impeacelnts. Must we not try impeachments as any other so authorized tribunal would try them ? Must we not ascertain the truth as any other court would asecertaii it. amid then pronounce it without fear or favor. as any other court would pronounce it? If an appeal would lie from our jndgment in this case. must it not stand or fall on exactly the same grounds as if a court were acting in our stead ? And should not a court of last resort be more cirenuspect and careful than any other? How many times have lawyers here heard a wise and pure judge. sitting in a court of first instance. say. "It matters little which way thisquestiomn is ruled now. I will iot stop to consider it. because both parties have the right of rviow ." but when sitting as a court of last resort. every pure tribunal must be cautious to the last degree. In proportion as a power is supreme and absolute. is the obligation to exert it carefully. supreme and absolute also. Ifa powerbe final. free fron revision. high indeed is the duty not to transcend its limits and not to tread on uncertain ground. Let us. then. banish the idea that the Sceato of the United States. or any other creature of the Constitution. acting judicially. is a law unto itself. Let us see to it that we do no violence to the settled rules of evidence. nor to the established principles of law. for they are the last sanctuary of isall. Governcentand citizens alike. Burke said the object of all government was to pit twelve honest men into the jurybox. The end cannot sanctify the niecs. We cannot plead in extenuation of exceeding our authority. that we have a laudable object in view. Error. is never so subtle or dangerous. as when it aiis at good. The history of fanaticism is the history of error aiming at good. and the annals of fanaticisus may be found in the blackest and bloodiest pietures in the book of time. The honorable Senator from Ohio told us yesterday of the actual question before us as lie uderstands it. As stated by the Senator. the eluestion is. Ies the Senate the courege to pronounce guilt ? Nay. Mr. President. I fear the question is rather. has the Senate the firmness and calmness to face popular impatience. which may charge us with approving bribery unless we declare that going back two years we can recall and reverse a political and legal event. although its natisre be such as to put it beyond our reach 7 The question is rather. whether the Senate has the tranquillity to assert the law. unmoved by a confused and hasty. though conscientious. sentiment which may insist that we approve knavery unless we declare that we can undo and destroy an accomplished flct. The question is rather. has the Senate the high courage which can resist a strong temptation to talce the shortest out to correct a flagrant evil. if the Constitutiou sav we must reach it by another road ? Can we determine coolly and aright th oone matter of our ji isd iction? If we can. it must be by keeping in check indignation and feeling. and putting aside the aggravations of the case. and our inclination to resort to a summary remedy. Who that would determine by conscience and judgment. his right to do an act. appeals to his wish to do it ? What wise and safe judge who sits down to measure the limits of his jurisdiction. inflarnes his impulses by dwelling upon the ulterior merits of the case? Jurisdiction is one thing. the judgment that should be rendered. in the proper proceeding before the piroper tribunal. is another. In the State of New York no murder can be punished unless the indictment bo feund in the county in which ti murder was done. or the homicide occur within live hundred yards of the county line. It was in such a case. the murder being proved. but proved on the farther side of a line not wider than a hair. that a judge said it might sometimes be the highest duty of a jury to pronounce a man innocent in law though they knew him to be guilty in fact. Such are the rugged landmarks. such the impassable barriers. separating jurisdiction and power. from the merits of the particular case in which action is invoked. Strong disposition breeds excess. Indignation. however laudable. disturbs the exact faculty of reason. as momentunm displaces matter. Every infraction of law is in itself a wrong. however praiseworthy the impulse which prompts it. Whenever the Senate transcends its authority in order that seine good may come to pass. the Senate but gilds with a now light the agonized exclamation of Roland. "0. Liberty. how many crines are committed in thy nanie!" If you would recommend error. say that it will promiote virtue. If yo would make shipwreck of priaciples. show the hardship of their application in a present instauce. and some advantage to flow from their violation. But if we would abide in the ancient ways of our fathers. we must watch ourselves. net when some bad end is to be gained by departing from them. but when some lofty or darling object appeals to us and dazes and captures the judgmenc. Wrong. is most to be dreaded when it crusades for right. Lotteries are baneful and forbidden. but you may rescue lotteries from public aversion. you may anoint them with public sanction. if you will make them lotteries in aid of churches. benefactions. or charity. Churches may be built by lotteries. but it were better they did not rise than rise o such foundations. One whose words I have double reason to remember. has said that "the endurance of a great present evil for the sake of a fardistant greater good. while it is one of the distinguishing characteristics. is also one of the most difficult achievements of the human mind." Should abstinence from unwarranted procedorc stay the avenging hand uplifted now. we shall learn after many (lays that abstinence was wise. Socrates was a majority in Athens when Socrates was all alone with right. There are many things which the individual States may do. and of which there is power somewhere to judge. The force and extent of the power to judge in this case. may be learned somevhat froe kindred cases. The States may enact laws. except as forbidden in the Constitution. There is power to judge of these laws and of their enactmet. The field of inquiry is striking in its resemblance to the field in which we are. What are the tests by which a statute of a Stato may be tried ? These are some of them: Was the onacting body a legislature? 7 Did the alleged statute uidergo the requisite legislative process f Were threefifths or twothirds present. as may be the requirement in the ease ? Was there fraud in the count of votes. or in the enrollment I Let me at this moment guard myself against a possible criticism. Speaking of the tests of a legislative act. I speak of fraud in the count of votes. I know it may be said that a court investigating such a question would be concluded by the record. Very likely . but that is a niere rule of evidence. nothing more. The court has ptower also to inquire whether the votes which are alleged to have enacted a statuto were given and couuted.and whether they did effectits oactment. So. too. the court has power to inquire. subject always to the rules of evidence. whether there was fraud in the enrollment of the act. I do not see the honorable Senator from New Jersey. usually seated on my left. he has recently argued in his own State a cause of nmuch gravity. in which one of the questions was. whether the chancellor of New Jersey could hear and decide that a certain provision which appeared in the statute as it was signed by the govcrnor. was or was not there when the process of enactmneiit was funishued. I am informed a decision has been announced disposing of the case before reaching this particular question. but the indications were that had he decided the point. the chancellor would have asserted his right to inquire whether the disputed sentioe was or was net in truth contained in the bill as it passed. Such a decision would have bee supported by many thoroughly considered cases. I here refer the Senate to some of the authorities illustrating the power of courts to go behind statutes and explore their enactuseut at every stage: Garduerv. The Collector. 6 Wallace. 499. Clare so. State of Iowa. 5 Iowa Reports. Pond vs. Maddox. 38 California Reports. Fowler vs. Pierce. 2 California. 165. Jones vs. Hutehison. 43 Alabansa Reports. 721. People vs. Mahanoy. 13 Michigan Reports. Illinois Central Railroad vs. Wren. 43 Illinois Reports. Cooley on Constitutional Litiitctions. pp. 135. 177: State vs. McBride. 4 Mississippi Reports. 302. Furgusson vs. Miners Bank. Sneed. (Tennessee.) 009. People vs. Campbell. . Oilman. (Illinois.) 466. Spanglor vs. Jaseby. 14 Illinois. 297. Harlo. vs. Logan. 17 Illinois. 151. Prescott vs. Board of Trustees. 19 Illinois. 324 . Supervisors vs. People. 25 Illinois. 181. Skinner vs. Domning. 2 Indiana.. 560 . Boarl of Supervisors vs. Hlcean. 2 Minuesota. 3:10. DoBow vs. ho People. 1 Denie. 9. Banlk rs. Sparrow. 2 Dnio. 97 . eoplo vs. Purdy. 2 Hill. 31 . same case.4 Hill.384. Doubtless a court niay inquire. did -violenceo intimidate the legislators. and coerce their action I And hero I will notice the position imputed to me by my honorable friend from Indiana. He misconceived me so far as to understand me to contend that we could not iu ay case go behind the return of a Senator in order to see whether Iis election was procured byfraud or duress. I instantly disclainied theview he attributed to me. I disclaim it now. I maintain that we as to a Senator. and a court as to a statute. may inquire whether duress comupelled an act to be done. and clothed it with themockery o" legal foriualities. Does the Senator fiom Indiana dobt that if a sqnadroa of cavalry should surround the legislature of his State and. ewordinhand. force from a majority a railwaygrarit or other statute. judicial authority could ainnul and disown it as no statute at all I So I might ask of other cases ecnfainuded by the Senator. as it seemed to me. with the case now before the Senate. His illustrations of duress and deceit or fraud. differ widely from bribery in the principles and remedies applicable to them. Suppose a number of legislators great enough to make a majority were stupefied by drugs until reason. will. and sense were utterly obliterated. and then they were made to appear to give the form of assent to a bill or resolution. does the Senator doubt that the proceeding would be as baseless and unsubstantial as the fumes of the intoxication from which it was evolved ? I say then. speaking of tests to which a statu to may be subjected. one of them is. did unlawful violence compel the act.? Was it duly signed and authenticated. which is equivalent to " returned" in the case of a enator? Is the statute in itself valid? Has it the constititional "qualifications" comparing it agaiu to the case of a Senator ? All those things may be judged. hut can aiiy authority dissolve t statute. or deny its enactment. because of the inward motives of the units which made up the legislative body I You may deal with thu statute . you may repeal it . you may see if it lacks any quality essential to its validity . you may punish every corrupt author of it.. but you cannot ignore or deny its existence. Why? Because it is the act of a competent body. Such was the view of the Supreme Court in Fletcher vs. Pock. 6 Cranch. 87. and sach must be regarded as the establishled law in this country. A like limit to the right to challenge acts and votes of counties. has been fixed by the Supreme Court in the case of Virginia vs. West Virginia. 11 Wallace. 39. Where does the analogy fail between the case of ai act of the legislature for which bribed votes wore given. and a Senator chosen by the sanse legislature who received brihled votes? The honorable Senator from Indiana [Mr. Mloirov] points us to the distinction. He says: It is contrary to the policy of the law to permit a court to inquire wlether a statute property cortifiod was euted through bribery. but such an inquiry bears no snalogy to she questioi whether the Se mato may inquire us to the electin of its meiers. for which purpos it is vested with express power. There is the distinction. The court cannot inquire of a statute. but the Senate may inquire of the election of a Senator. because the Senate is "vested with express power." Are not courts "vested with express power to judge of the enactimeat and validity of legislative acts The constitutions of the States vest them with this power. The Constitution of Clie United States empowers the J ederaljndiciary expressly so to judge. But. says the honorable Senator from Ohio. the Constitution does not say that. in judging of the election of Senators. we are to j nige "soad this or quaod that." No. sir. it says we siall "judge." Does the Constitution of the United States say that the Supreme Court. in judging of statutes. shall judge "qtouad tids or quoad that?0 Far from it. As it stands in the text of the ConstiLtuion. the power is unbridled. it is a power regulated only as every power delegated by the Constitution is regulatedregulated as it shall appcar to be when it is read in the light of the gathered precepts and ma ims of the law. I know it may be saidI surmise the Senator from Ohio not in his seat. were he present. would be moved to say-"Acourt cannot calleage the existence or authority of the sovereign whose creature it is." True. sir. the Supreme Court so said in the case of Luther vs. Borden. Nobody doubts it. But may not a court decide whether in law ani in fact an alleged act is the act of tie sovereign whose creature it is? Read the Constitution endowing the Supreme Court with original and appellate jurisdiction. and tell me where. in its powers to judge of statutes. yen find mete or bound not in rcason obligatory on us when engaged in the proceeding now before us. Yet the cburts. with a power as unlimited as ours in terms. have imposed their own limits on themselves. The act of a State in choosing a Senator. is one of a family of acts so identical in their attributes that it is hard to see how they can differ essentially in the tests of their validity. Let us consider some of thet. Amendments to the Constitution of the United States are ratified by States. The proceeding. Senators will observe. is not even legislative in its eature. The Supreme Court has decided. that even the concurrent resolutin of the two Houses of Congress proposing amendments to the Constitution. is not a legislative proceeding. The Supreme Court deems it a proceeding sui gmerie. having. in the case of Holingeworth vs. Virginia. held that the resolution proposing amendments to the Constitution need not be signed by ths President. Surely the ratification of an amendment by a State is not a legislative proceeding.. The Constitution provides that amendments may be ratiflied either by the legislatures of the severalfStates. or by conventions. That a convention may do it. proves that the act is not legislative in character. and this fact is important. because it divests the case of peculiarities supposed to attach to legislative power. Lawyers and laymen will alike admit that it is no legislative act when the State of New York. not through her legislature but through a convention. places the seal of her approbation upon a proposed amendinent. And who has the courage to say in this presence that if a member of a State convention be bribed to vote for a constitutional amendment. the amendment would fail if the assent of that State were necessary to make the required threequarters I Where is the distinction in tho power to judge between that case and this I A case arises under the enforcement net. tt hinges on the fourteenth and fifteenth amendmonts. and the fact of their being part of the Constitution is denied. The court must pass upon the fact that the atnendients are or are not in the Coustitution. but what would be thought of an offer to. prove that. a given number of States being necessary to adopt the amendments. "some members" of the legislature or convention of one State voted from venal motives? Let it not be said there is no power to judge whether a ratification of an amendment is valid and Complete: the executive. the legislative. the judicial departments. each cue of them. may and must judge. The Senator from Ohio yesterday said the governor of a State must sign a statute. and is therefore part of the legislative department. but the governor takes no part in the choice of a Senator. rypo. it cannot be the legislature. as a legislature. that chooses Senators. and there is no identity in principle between the two cases. What will the Senater from Ohio do with the case of ratifying a constitutional amendment? Must the governor participate in its ratification? Not at all. That ease is upon all fours with this. Talce another case: "Each State shall appoint"--observe tho wordnot" choose" asia the case of a Senator not "ratify" as in the case of an amendment. but "appoint. in such manner as the legislature thereof maV direct. a number of electors" of President and VicePresident. &o. These electors need not be elected by the people they may be appointed by the legislature. or by the governor of a State. the mode of appointment being optional with the State itself. South Carolina for many years appointed electors through her legislature. not by the votes of the people. and who ever dreamed that it could be even argued that electors were not appointed. that no appointment had taken place. whenever it iight be discovered afterward that a member of the legislature had received a bribe? I speak of electors partly for the answer their case affords to a remark made by the honorable Senator from Missouri. He reminded the Senator from Delaware of adistinction fatal. as he seemedto think. to the argument drawn fromn the limited range of inquiry tolerated in going behind statutes to avoid them. The idea in substance was that Senators are not ehosen. as laws are enacted. by the States of their own mere right without permission of the Constitution.

S

Mr. CONKLiNG

Unknown

CONKLING

Unknown

M

03191873.txt

The Senator must be mistaken. It was somebody else who made that remark. I suppose. I did not speak of it at all.

S

Mr. SCHURZ

Unknown

SCHURZ

Unknown

M

03191873.txt

Mr. President. one of my infirmities is a soenwhat tenacious memory. and. under favor. I insist that the Senator from Missouri brought forward this distinction. in substance: Though the statute of a State is evolved from the power of a StateI do not stop to recall his expressionthe right to elect a Senator is a creation of the Constitution of the United States. the Senate itself being a creation of the Constitution. M Cr. SCIUIZ. If the Senator will permit me. I will read imy remark.

S

Mr. CONKIIG

Unknown

CONKIIG

Unknown

M

03191873.txt

Certainly.

S

Mr. CONKLING

Unknown

CONKLING

Unknown

M

03191873.txt

This is what occurred:

S

Air. SCHIURZ

Unknown

SCHIURZ

Unknown

M

03191873.txt

Will the Senator permit me to ask him a question? Mr. II YARI\ Certinly.

S

Mr. SCHTURt

Unknown

SCHTURT

Unknown

M

03191873.txt

r do not think that I agre woith the Senator from Indiana on a geat many questions concerning State rights. but Is It iot tre. after all. that the euste of the United States is a creation of the Constitution of the United States Would the Senats of the United States have existed without the Constitution of the United States I

S

Mr. SCHURZ

Unknown

SCHURZ

Unknown

M

03191873.txt

Ifo doubt the Senate of the United States is part of the framework of the Constitution.

S

Mr. BAYARD

Unknown

BAYARD

Unknown

M

03191873.txt

The Senate. then. being a erratl. of the Constittion.

S

lir. SCHIURZ

Unknown

SCHIURZ

Unknown

M

03191873.txt

Certainly.as a means by which the States veo to b reprosornted hero.

S

irr. 1AYARD

Unknown

1AYARD

Unknown

M

03191873.txt

Precisely. the Senate being a creation of the Constitution of the United States. net established for the purpose of giving the States. ons sovereignty. diplomatic representatives near another sovereigstv. hut for the porpose of formtng a dietinet branch of the legislative department of the Gooronont. is nor. in so far. a member who becomes part uf that body als a creation of the Con. stitution of the Unitedt States in his political existence? When I said that the Senator disremembered. I referred to that sentence which he attributed to me coneerning the creation of a statute passed by the State legislature. I have road all that I said on the matter referred to.

S

Mr. SCHURZ

Unknown

SCHURZ

Unknown

M

03191873.txt

Mr. President. love of offspring is a pervading instinct of auimated nature. and pride of paternity. satisfied with nothing but exact quotation of his words. is pardonable in a master of diction like the Senator from Missouri. My mind is not microscopic enough. however. to discover wherein I injuriously or materially mistook the position of the Senator.

S

Mr. CONKLING

Unknown

CONKLING

Unknown

M

03191873.txt

If the Senator has no objection-

S

Mr. SCHURZ

Unknown

SCHURZ

Unknown

M

03191873.txt

None.

S

Mr. CONIING

Unknown

CONIING

Unknown

M

03191873.txt

The Senator will observe that I did not contradict him as to what lie said subsequently. bat only in attributing languago to mc with reference to statutes enacted by State legislatures. I did not refer to that at all. but simply to the Senate of the United States as being a creation of the Constitution.

S

Mr. SCHURZ

Unknown

SCHURZ

Unknown

M

03191873.txt

The Senator from Delaware was at the time speaking of the modes of impeaching statutes. and it will be plai to the Senator in a moment that the purpose for which I refer to liis remnark is not affected by the precise terms he employed. The Senator from Missouri saw. or thought he saw. a legal or philosopliiial distinction between the power to revise the enactment of a statute. which the Senator from Delaware was stating. and the power to revise the choosing of a Senator. because. although a statute rests upon the foundation of inherent State power. the election of a Senator is permitted or authorized by the Constitution of the United States. I inquire now whether the President aud VicePresident of the United States are not both creations of the Constitution V I inquire whether the States appoint electors for President and VicePresident of their own right and motion. or whether. like the right to elect a Senator. it is derived from the Constitution of the United States? These offices are part of the frame of government. The Senator muss now see my purpose in referring to his remarks. and. I think. it will be as difficalt for him as for nie to find a distinction. the minutest. between appointing electors and choosing Senators. in respect of the origin and source of the power in the States. Lot me present still other illustrations. Appointments to office.areby the advice and consent of the Senate. A quo searruato brings into the sulight of judicial investigation every element of virtue or vice in the tenure by which one claims an offlee. Drought into court to establish the right by which one claims to exercise an office. he is vulnerable through every avenue of attack known to the law. Will it be said that a commission could be vitiated. and a confirmation by the Senate avoided. by proving that one member of this body had been bribed to vote for the confirmation. even if that vote gave the requisite majority?. You may expel time member who was bribed. you may indict and impeach the man who bribed him. but can you say that the appointmeut was not made ? The President and the Senate together make treaties. The President without the Senate. is as powerless as a private citizen to cou. elude a treaty. The Senate. as much as the President. makes a treaty. If the President be bribed to make a treaty. the House may impeach hiim. if Senators be bribed to make a treaty. they may be expelled. they may be punished. But would Christendom scren with laughter. or be grim with contempt. if a natioa were to say "We refuse to observe this treaty because it was carried by bribery in the Senate. and therefore it was never made. and is no treaty?" Yet such a denial of the validity of a treaty. might summon to its aid all the sovereign attributes and faculties. all tic ethics untrammeled by technical modes and forms. to be found in the unemeasured realms of natural law. Courts. and heads of Departments. appoint officers. courts. commissioners and registers in bankruptcy. heads of Departments. clerks and postmasters. Was it ever cnnceived that reason or law would brook an attempt to mako out that an appointient was not made because the appointing power was bribed to make it? Pardons are granted tnd vetoes are imposed by presidents and governors and councils. Alay they be canceled for bribery I A pardon is often subjected to every test of which a paper is susceptible. The statute of a State declares that a man convicted of certain felonies shall never be heard more as a witness in court. The life of a citizen being at stake. such a convict offers himself to testify. but the record of conviction is read and he stands mute . he draws forth a pardon. however. issued. perhaps. by the governor of Massaichusetts. where a council recommends pardons to the governor. and reads it. and though his sins were scarlet. if the pardon be valid. instantly he is white as snow. The pardon in such a case becomes the pivot upon which everything may turn. It is in issue. It may be assailed and destroyed in any way known to the law. It may lie proved that it was obtained by fraudjust such fraud as the Senator from Ohio referred to yesterday. not. I suppose. to darken onnsoel by words. but to administer a tonic to tho courago of the Senate. when he asked if it was contended that if a man were elected Senator by false personation the Senate could not inquire into the fact. Let me apply the Senators question to a pardon. Is it contended if a blank paper be laid before the President and h asked for his autograph. and writes it. and afterward a pardon is written above the signature. that the facts being proven in court the pardon would not fell I If one by personating another procures a signature. or if one induces the governor of a Statoto sign a pardon. he not knowing whet he signs. sud not meaning to sign it. the paper could not stand. The Senator from Ohio yesterday told us of something older than Christopher Columbus. has any discoverer before or since the daring Genoese. ever found on the seas or the shores of jurisprudence. that you may dissolve a pardon. and prove that it was notissned. by showing that the pardoning power received a bribe to grant it. or a bribo to one of the executive council from which it came? fIlow will Senators draw a distinction between a pardon given by a governor. or given by a council or legislature. and the case at bar. as regards the question of the effect of motive. be it bribery. glory. or shae ? Lot me put another case. The supreme law of the land iumposes disabilities upon those who unsheathed the sword against the Republic when oaths had bound them to defend it. By the Constitution these disabilities may be removed by twothirds of both Houses of

S

Mr. CONKLING

Unknown

CONKLING

Unknown

M

03191873.txt

WELL nor the facts of Mr. CALDWrLls case were before them. I ask the Senate to listen to a few passagesfirs from the majority report The Seonators from each Stats are equal in niurhcr. til cannot ho increased or diminisoheod. oien .yan amendment of the Conatitiion. without the consent of the States respectively. They are chosen by tie States tas politicalrelorrigntico without regard to their representative populatim. and formt t ile tieral hich of the national logislatrre. The same body qf rnen which possesses the powers of legislation in each State is sotne eCOpeteit to appoeint Senators to Oongressor the terra prescribed in tie Coustituta. I the performance o " this duty. th dtae acts in the highest sovereign capacity. and the causes which would render the election of a Senator vid ist be such s would destray the validity of al laws enacted by the body by ewhich. the Senator was chosen. Other rcuses might eitr to rider the election voidable. aid those are enemerated in the Gonstitation. beyond wliiih tie Senate cannot interpese its authirity to disthnb or control theB sovereign itowers of the States. vstel in their legislatures hy the tiContittion of the Uttited States. We mtghtt ineuirei. was thoersot slected thirty vears of use at he tiia of its elnetion ? lad lo been nine years a citizen of the Daired States ts ho. at the time of his election. a citizen of the Stan. for which he shall have boon chosen? Was the election hohl at the tims and place ilirecte by thiolawvof the Stats? These are facts eatabl ot clear demonsraion bynroofs. ind isithobscieo of the reqoisito qualifications in either of the specifeio cases. or if th existing laws of em Scat regulating tse time and place far holdin the election were otilated. the Senate. acting unider the power to judge of "the elections. returns. and qiuallficatioun of its owe mecbere. might adjudge the commission of tho person elected void. although in all other respects it was legal aid canstitutional. But where the sovereign will of teo State is made known through its legislature. ail consunnmatid by its proper official futctlonaries ill dii. form.It wool4 be a dngerous oxortion of power to lack behind the eommission for defects on the coap~oparts of thi tegislature. or into the peculiar orgasizatisn of she lowly. far reasons to testify the Senate in declaring its acts absolutely unit coil void. Snch a power. if co nd to ity ldgitieat extelt. would subject theentire scope of Slate lrqiolaion to be omerruled by oc deision. ad cone the right of e tirage of iitdioiditt oenbero" of the legislature. whose elections wer onteed. iiht be ct aidde. It iseald else teed to iiaeesligalions ite ttcmcatice of noenhere ii ostiq their solesfer the purpose of cotabliehng a checgs of bribery oresriicytton in partiiliir eases. Thee. icattere. your eonmittce thud-. properly belong to the tribunal of the Stats. nd cannot eonetitcte the basis cit ihich the Seitt eutd. without sic iinfriyrmeat of State eoseteiqaty. elaois the riqtit to declare the election of a Stoonter cold iolio p s ses ed th e r q isit e e li f hica . a d a ses h se n y. ec ord i og to the fo r ti of la ad the nostiohttio e. Thc gne r vies o re offered nto that contested lrotiin in the ponglar Crouch of Coutecess. wero ths people exert. in Choir primary capacity. rtem right of snlsg IItic various ltiinitatioi cod oretrtions li the electiot of eaetrento. tires from certainhprescried distriets. epen a his u eridscfictd of iaqiiii oid im. tigation has a lite contetl .for a seat in the Senat hileh is a bonty seieltfed(ratice Cit ietster ach oryaatt n otse anawaors hold t oer ppeAnona tsfio .ad rpreesilt the Staeis ceeout i..al.som.r..g.tie.. Jhe report. further on. proceeds: Yor committee having regard to those rulesThose just read among othersas applicalel to all contested elections in the Senate. prooool to apply them to the case now oniler consideration. The Senate will see that. instead of regarding the mitter trotod of as foreign to the case before it. the committee plainly says that the case depends upon the "rules 1 enuniciated. Silas Wright and Mr. Rives dissented. not from the principles or doctrines I have read. but from their application and result in the case then in band. and. in his dissent. Silas Wright. speaking for himself and for Mr. rivee. says: So. also. in the ease ssupposed by the majority of the centAeitte. of alleged bribery and rerrcptcn1 liqesnderigned ha always i pposl that a .oesoer of aleclatio body =o cld aept a bribe was penishabl for the crime. bmet ha has nevr .sderstood. a.nor loc l stow "se dergio lw. Ihot the vote of Cite s7nneber .qtocs Under the ceorrupt lutence vitiated the prceetidng voted upon. or rendered eithr vod or voidable by legal adldicalion suet proceedicg. Thr soecber bribed is still eonsstutiooally and legally a icosber of the body notithetandinq his corrption. and retns all his ights sad all hitpowers as aoembcr. until eonsiction for the crines oasts tliotfron his seat Mr. President. where is the authority. where is the argument to refute. the principles there laid down and affirmed by a weight of authority more than respectable. more than persuasive? But we are asked. "Is there no remedy for bribery . does no storn slunmber anywhere with power to burst upon the heads of those who profane elections and buy seats in the Senate? Shall we fold our arms and sit qisietly by. while corruption stalks highheaded in the public way f" The honorable Senator tiom Indiana mused in this hopeless strain: If there be no power eithor in the Senate or in tfie State lcgillature to inquire whether st elction lohas been proeareod by bribery or fraul. thlen te evil woul be irreinediable. however gross autn wicked thie ins ance. end if suih be tlse position of the Senate. it i perhaps the only legislative body in the civilized world in Stich a helpless conditiona lanricet. the refrain of which came back yesterday from the honorable Senator from Ohio. This is gloomy. to be sure. but lot us cheer up . the case is not so sad after all. Remedies are not wanting. First. the States may and should enact laws to iandict and punish. nay. they may execute. the man who gives or takes a bribe. Is there anythiig iso the Constitution to prevent capital punishment fron being inflicted in such cases?

S

Mr. CA-LD

Unknown

CA-LD

Unknown

M

03191873.txt

lothing that I know.

S

Mr. HOWE

Unknown

HOWE

Unknown

M

03191873.txt

The Senator from Wisconsin says that nothing that heknows. and what he does not know I will not try to find out. (Ltnigliter.] We are appealed to for remedies. First. I repeat. the State has power to deal with and punish every actor in n transaction of bribery. not more the member of its own legislature who accepts the bribe. than the expectant member of the Senate of the United States who otlrs it. Secondly. Congress may do the same thing. and Congress may disable the briber. too. The two Houses of Congress have power. ninder the Constitution. to enact astatute nuder whichevery natt who in a. senatorial election ofelbrs abribe (wPhether he succeeds in buying a Senatorship or net) may be punished. a statute which shall disable a briber to sit in this chamber. though he be crowned with election piled upon election as long as Iris life lasts. Thirdly. the Senate may expel a member guilty of bribery. the faes bringing the case within the jurisdiction of the Senate. All. or either of these three reniedies. will remove the offending member. Either of them will vacate the seat.

S

Mr. COENKLING

Unknown

COENKLING

Unknown

M

03191873.txt

May I ask the Senator a question?

S

Mr. FERRY. of Connecticut

Unknown

FERRY

Connecticut

M

03191873.txt

Certainly.

S

Mr. CONKLNG

Unknown

CONKLNG

Unknown

M

03191873.txt

There is one point. in regard to which I should like to hear the opinion of the Senator froom New York. Suppose that the Senatoelect at the time of his election was abroad. loew nothing of the election. but thaot parties in his State. having purloses of their ewn which they believed him best qualified to sniseve in the Senate. bribe a controlling majority of the legislature. and thus secure his election . as ts law now stands. is there any riodo of depriviag him of the right of taking his seat and maintaining it ini the Senate 7

S

Mr. FERRY. of Connecticut

Unknown

FERRY

Connecticut

M

03191873.txt

A pregnant questiona question which sifts and tests soe of the arguments we have heard . arguments which strangely insist that in dealing. not with the offender hat with the clectien itsulf and judging whether the action of the legislature was valid or void. our judgment mst stand or fall with the privity or cemplicity of the candidate himself. If we can inquire into the election on the ground of alleged bribery in toe State legislature. it is. upon that question. matter of legal indifference whether the moncy was paid by tIe candidate hiasself. or whether. he being beyond seas. some officions and corrupt partisa employed money for him. When wdeal with the Scnatorelect. and try or expel him. the allimportant question is. was lie partieops orimitis ? Ent when we are dealing with the electioa alone. it instters ruot. in my iew. in the absence of a statute vitiating it. whether .he bribery was with money paid by a candidate. or by a railway or ferry company. a freetrade league or drawn from the contributionbox of the poor. It 1llows from this that the question of the Senator but prcstitsin another form the ease before us. This branch of the inquiry embraces the power of the Senate to inquire into the motives of members of a State legislstnre. be the case the enactsuetb of a law. the choice of a Senator. or the ratilication of a constitutional amendnent. and if the power cannot be fiind in the case of Mr. CALDWEI L. it cannot be foand in the casse put by the Senator. unless Alto snippositimn of a larger number of votes being cast from venal indscement alters the question. Mr. FE"RRY. of Connecticut. Then the Senator will answer my question in the negativethat there is no mode under existing law ita the circumstances which I have supposed by which the meber bhus elected would be prevented from occupying his seat in the Senate.

S

Mr. CONKLING

Unknown

CONKLING

Unknown

M

03191873.txt

I answer that if there be no constitutional provision or statute in the State affecting the case. if there boie statt of the United Stntes providing forit. if the member elected so stands that the expulsios clause of the Constitution does not touch hin. it is not easy to see how judieial power could mend the matter. I will tell the Senator friom Connecticut of the only absolutely effectual remedy for such dire debancheryit is public virtue. Yo. may multiply statutes until yon have piled Pelion on Ossa. Paut may plant and Apollos may water. we may rend our garments and rendl the Constitution . but nless the effort is rooted in the public conscience. it will fiil and perish. Look at England. honcycombed with bribery. every parliamentary election a carnival of fraud ant venality from Cornwall to Northumberhand. and then look at her jurisprudence. bristling with fierce and sweeping statutes. I turn now to an idea advanced by the Senator from Georgia. [Mr. Notwoon.] who yesterday delivered his views so clearly and so well. lie said. and the Senator from Ohio [Mr. TilURtAN] afterward strove to add force to the suggestion. "Is it not absurd to hold that a man who has been guilty of buying votes to elect him to the Senate. shall be admitted as a Senator. and then shall be expelled? Why not keep keep him out. instead of putting him out after lotting him in ?" Can such an argument be really intended for lawyers? Is it to instruct the court. or to amuse and daze the spectators ? The astute Senator from Ohio seemed not to have his mind or his eye oul the Senate. for he said that the people were not metaphysical enough to understand sch a doctrine. lie underrates the people. I tlhink. Is the Senator himself so metaphysical as to understand how. sitting upon the bench. he might adjudge a man and woman to be man and wife. in law and in fact. and afterward proceed to divorce them ? Why liot say they are not married. and do ne with it ? Why say they are married. and then say they shall not remain man anti wife? The absurdity charged is in admitting that an elction of a Senator took place in Kansas. and then proceeding to consider wlsether Mr. CALDwa LL shall be expelled or not. I would do just this. If it be absurd. make the most of it. I call no argument made in the Senate absurd. bt one thing I do know: it is not true. it cannot legally be true. both that Mr. CA LDWELL Was not elected. and that we may expel Mr. CALDWELL. The two things cannot exist together. they deny and destroy each other.

S

Mr. CONKLING

Unknown

CONKLING

Unknown

M

03191873.txt

Will the honorable Senator pardon me for one moment ?

S

Mr. NORWOOD

Unknown

NORWOOD

Unknown

M

03191873.txt

Certainly.

S

Mr. CONKLING

Unknown

CONKLING

Unknown

M

03191873.txt

The answer to the ease of marriage which lie suggests. in iny judgment. is this: No divorce is ever granted by it conrt. as the houorable Senator knows. as a question of law. until the fact of marriage is established. anti when that fact is established. then the court proceeds to adju dge whether a divorce will be granted. But it seems to me that is not the case of Mr. CALDWELL at all. Wo are to judge of the fact as to whether Mr. CALDWELL was entitled to his scat. having been guilty of bribery. I say we could judge of it before lio was admitted. The honorable Senator says we caunot judge of it until after he is admitted. that we must admit lim to his seat. and then decide the question of bribery. and. if lie is guilty. expel him. Suppose a member presented himself here wh was under a disqualilication tnder the Constitution. and that fact waa brought to the knowledge of te Senate. should we have to adrlit him. and then vacate his seat? SUiOso there was any other act for which you would expel hin. and that was brought to the knowledge of the Senate. I ask. does it comport with reason that yo are first to admit hino to his seat in order to get jurisdiction over him to expel him

S

Mr. NORWOOD

Unknown

NORWOOD

Unknown

M

03191873.txt

The Senator from Indiana the chairman of the committee. informed us in a carefully written speech with which the discussion began. that in his opinion this case is cognizable in two waysthat we can either hold Mr. CALDWEciLS election void becaoe ho never was elected. or we can expel Mr. CALDWLL. Mr. I10WE- leoaauso he had not been.

S

Mr. CONKLING

Unknown

CONKLING

Unknown

M

03191873.txt

Let toe deal with this clait of duplex jurisdiction for a moment. Do the States nominate Senators for us to confirm or not as we choose. or do tho States themselves choose Seiators? If the States choose Senators. how can we at our option in one and the sanc case say that a Senator was elected. or. if we please. that he was not elected? Such a doctrine commits the election ahsolately to the will and caprice of the Senate. it does more. it does worse. for it affirms that. in the exercise of our will and caprice. we need have no reverence for truth. or even for consistency in error. Is not this amazing? With the facts and the law before us. we may. if we please. decide that Mr. CALDWELL was not elected. or. if we please. we may decide that he was elected. or we may decide both ways at the same time! Such. in effect. is the position maintained. The Sosnator from Indiana says. first. that Mr. CALDWELL never wats elected. If that be true. can we expel him? No. sir. the case is thou at an end. -Th.QoA tlLto Q~dqjsq that. the Senate may. MArwCl 19. "with the concurrence of twothirds. expel a secbr"-a member. not a page. not the Sergeant ntAts . not an intruder. visitor. or stranger. yo can expel no man unless lie is a member. He is not a member unless he has been elected. There is but one way known among men in which a man can become " a member" of the Senate. and that is. being chosen by the legislature of a State. If Mr. CaLowrLL was not elected. can we elect him . can we ratify or validate his election if it is not good in law or in fact ? Can we say. be was not duly or legally elected. but we will treat him as elected for the purpose of expelling him. we will hold him up while we knock him down? No. sir. one of two things is true: either Mr. CAT.DWELL Was elected to the Senate. or else we have no power to expel him. Instead. therefore. of its being absurd to admit a man on the ground thatle i elected. and then to turn around and expel him. his admission is a conditionprecedent to his expulsion. and indispensable to it. Is this absurdity ? It has been said. farther. suppose a man. after his election to the Senate. be convicted of bribery. alleged to have occurred in his own election. and the record of conviction be laid before us. would it not be absurd to admit him to his seat. and then consider his expulsion ? Tho Sonator from Ohio promiseda promise he has never found time to redeemto show us that in expelling a man for bribery. if the bribery took place in his own election. wo must investigate the motives of the members of the legislature. and impute the bribery to them. It is a great loss not to have heard this argument. as a feat of logic. it mast have been past praise. The grounds on which a Senator convicted of felony might be expelled. seem easily visible. Conviction of infamous cerime. establishes the guilt of the convict. and attaints and disgraces him . if he be a Senator. his disgrace afficts the Senate. and the Senate may perform a lestration by expelling him. If a record of a competent court informs us that one chosen to the Senate has been found guilty of bribery. how does it matter. in respect of the power to expel him. whether the bilberyoccurred in one proceeding or another ? Suppose he bribed the speaker of the house to make some decision that would aid him. suppose he bribed ajudge to render ajudgment. having no reference to any electionwould not the record of conviction in either case sustain a resolution of expulsion as well as if it attested the bribery of a member to vote for the briber ? Suppose the claimant of a seat in the Senate bad been indicted and convicted of murder after his election. would our right to expel him hinge uion the question whether his motive in the murder was to got rid of a rival who might stand in the way of his senatorial aspirations?

S

Mr. CONKLING

Unknown

CONKLING

Unknown

M

03191873.txt

If the honorable Senator will pardon me. that was not my position. I suppose ho is referring now to the remarks of the Senator from Ohio.

S

Mr. NORWOOD

Unknown

NORWOOD

Unknown

M

03191873.txt

Yes. to the Senator from Ohio. in part.

S

Mr. CONKLING

Unknown

CONKLING

Unknown

M

03191873.txt

I ask the honorable Senator. in the case ho supposes. if the murder was committed after the election. and the party was convicted. and we had the record here when he preseuted himself to the Senate. would lie hold that that man was entitled to a seat. and then. after be was seated. expel him for the murder 7

S

Mr. NIORWOOD

Unknown

NIORWOOD

Unknown

M

03191873.txt

No . I should net hold he " was entitled to a seat ." I should hold he was elected. and could bo expelled fron his seat. The Senators question but caricatures . little more broadly than anything has yet done. the argument necessary to support the resolution now on our table. Havo we drifted so far from our inoorings. are we so lost to legal sense. that two opinions can he found among lawyers upon such a case as the Senator proposes? Let me state the case: A recordofeonviction comes to the Senate. showing that a ma who has been elected a Senator has committed murder. and the Senator from Georgia wants to know whether it would not be right for the Simate to declare that the Senator was rot elected rather than to expel the convict. This is only the logical climax of the arguments required by the resolution before i. Would not the pages of the Senate laugh. if wo should hold that. because a man was convicted of a murder three months after his electron. therefore he never was elected at all? What have the two things to do with each other? You iught as well say if a Senator comes here with the smallpox or the deliriumiretncus. we shall not expel him. but we must decide that he never was elected. I dismiss as fallacious the doctrine that the power to deny or avoid an election. and the power to expel. are alternative or convertible powers. optional with the Senate. and applicable to the same case at the same time.

S

Mr. CONKLING

Unknown

CONKLING

Unknown

M

03191873.txt

I hope the honorable Senator will not-

S

Mr. NORWOOD

Unknown

NORWOOD

Unknown

M

03191873.txt

Does the Senator from New York yield to the Senator from Georgia?

S

The VICE-PRESIDENT

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

03191873.txt

The Senator was so courteous yesterday in yielding to a question from rae. that I cannot refuse to yield to him . but my remarks are already so wearisome in length. that I will thank him to be brief.

S

Mr. CONKLING

Unknown

CONKLING

Unknown

M

03191873.txt

I simply wish to explain to the Senator what my position is on the question he is now discussing. I tried to make it clear. if I did not do so. yesterday. I understand his position to be this : that if Mr. CAanWELL procured his seat here by bribery. lie cannot be prevented from taking his seat. notwithstanding that fact were known to the Senate just as well when he presented himself as it would be known by the report of an investigating committee after he was sworn in. Now. the ease of niurder maybe applicasbl as. well as bribery . but we will go bac to the case of bribery. in other words. we have cease iupoin which the Senate would tesl itself jastilied in law in expelling-

S

Mr. NORWOOD

Unknown

NORWOOD

Unknown

M

03191873.txt

May I interrupt the Senator? Would it not he equally grecable to him to allow tne to conclnde. and the subinit his arguniout? TheSenator will see that if he iijects an argnment into my remarks. tedious already. they may become unpardonablo. I would not misstate the position of the Senator. and if I have muisconceived him. I beg him to set me right hereafter. . I question the argument which insists that time crime for which a member may be expelled. need be part of the res gesicl of his election. Had Mr. CALOWieLL shot down a man in Kansas last year. had he been inlieted for homicide and conuvieted. had that record been laid before us. our power to deal with him would. I think. bcgin and end at the same point. whether the homicide grew out of his election or not. If we Could expel MIr. CALDWaLL for shooting a rival. we could expel hins for slaying any ueniau being whom the law had in its keeping. In either case. his turpitude would be the ground of his expulsion. and the effect of the record would be to fasten the turpitude upon him. The connection of the act with his election. could. at most. be material uly upon the question of our jurisdiction of it and of hi in. I proceed now to inquire how and of what the Senato may judge in respect of the admission of its members. First. of the "return:" Is it from the authorized source? Is it genuino? Is it sufficient in form and substance? Was it obtained by fraud or duress? Of all chose it is our right to judge. Secondly. "qualifications:" what are they? Tley are resilence. age. and nine years citizenship. and they are nothing more. This is so stated by the Senator from Iudiana. the Senator frito Ohio. [Mr. Triun.qx.] the Senator front Missouri. [Mr. Scnnz.] but the Senator from Vermont. some days ago read us a written opinion. in which he says he is going to vote to declare that Mr. CaLwWELL was not elected. because Mr. CALDwaLL lines not. as he thinks. the "qualifications" of a Senator. To do the Senator from Vermont no injustice. I read from his opinion. lle says: To assert that the Senate cannot judge of any qualifieations sve tuose pertieorirly mentioned in tie Constisutionaof e and citizsiship--would force the admission and retention of hnatics sind idiots. Mr. President. the choice of a lunatic to the Presidency of the United States. should it ever happen. may try the strength and Ilexi bili ty of our Government. If men shall ever succeed in putting off upon the Anerian people. a candidate for the Presidency insane before the election takes place. a serious juncture will be reached it the nations life. Being elected. a madman could not take the oath of office . he would have no legal will or mind. He could not resign the office. It was held. in a learned and able opinion given by Mr. Cashing when AfterneyGeneral. and has been generally accepted. that a lunatic. or one noe empoi. cannot resign an. office. Ito could not sign laws. or veto them. lie could not act. The House of Representatives could not impeach bn. because insanity is not a crime or nisdoneanor It would be impossible to appoint a regency. as England did fok George III. because our Constitution knows no reguey. The Constitution declares thatIn case of the rieoval of the rreiidnt from offlic. or of hls death. resignation. or inability to diachilrg. the powers aud duties of the said efi.ca. the same shall dovolvo on t6e VicePresident. Passion. folly. blindness. or concealment and imposition practiced upon the nation. may yet nute a lnadinan for the presidential chair. and then shall he he seated. and who. with the acquiescence of grappling parties and factions. shall settle all the questions to arise? But no such danger lies in wait for us. Under the power to expel. we can remove frotm the Senate any member smitten with physical or moral infection. or who cannot or does iot observe the rules of the Senate. and act as a member. A man who enters this body with deliriuntreauens. constitutionally " qualified" though lie be. is the subject of expulsion. He who comes with smallpox. he who. comes a raving maniac or a driveling idiot. though elected and qualified. and because elected and qualified. and so a meatber of the Senate. atay. with the coaurrenco of twothirds. be expelled. And yet the Senator from Vermont is going to veto for the resolution to deny and unsay an election. grounding his vote upon the belief that Mr. CaiDwELL is lacking in the "qualifieatios" of a Senator. Jacob Collamer. the predecessor of the Senator. standing just where I do now. delivered an argument not yet forgotten by those who heard it. vindicating the power of Congress to enact the "ironclad oath." The purpose of his argument was to show that to prescribe an oath to be taken by Senators. was not to roquiroany "qualification." or to add a jot or tittle to the qualiications sot down in the Constitution. It has always been admitted that if the testoath could be deemed a qualification to be oxacted of members of either House. it would conflict plainly with the Constitution. The oly argument on which it stauds is. that it imposes no qualifieation whatever. The honorable Senator from Ohio [Air. TetURc i] holds that the ironclad oath violates the Constitution. and lie will confirm no in saying that he so holds because he thinka it attempts to prescribe or add a qnalification. Henods assent. Every lawyer will agree that the testuati statute is void if it goes to the qnestioii. who is eligible to be elected to a soat or to be returned to the Senate. It may have been forgotten that the late 9cuiaor from Illinois. the redecessor of my distinguished friend before m. [Mr. OeuucSiV.] caine hore. followed by a protest. signed by nearly half she legislature of 187a. the State. against his being admitted as a Senator. because Illinois had imbedded in its fundamental law that no man who bad been elected judge. should. during the judicial term. be chosen Senator. anti that all votes given for hins should be absolutely null and void. The Senate brushed aside the protest. because the Constitatieu of the United States. the sole authority. states the qualifications. and all the qualifications. to be exacted ofa Senator. The same thing happened. I think. in the ease of Mr. Doolittle. who came fron the State of Wisconsin. Still. despite the indisputable reasons to the contrary. at least one Senator will. as he declares. vote for the pending resolution. upon the ground that Mr. CALDWELL. for deficiency in "quaification." is not a member of the Senate. Such a vote will. perliaps. best accord with the challenge of the Senator from Ohio to so vote as to display courage. Thirdly. the Senate is the judge of the "election." What matters may this judgment embrace ? Is there a State "in proper practical relations with the Union ?" Thu latter words. are Mr. Lincolns. Is there a legislature ? This is one of the questions touching the credentials from Louisiana. now lying on the table. Was the act done ? Was the choice made? And here we nany inquire for frad and duress. If. as thu Scnator from Indiana suggested. a file of soldiers marched into the legislative hall in Kansas. and. at the point of the bayonet. demanded and coerced the election for Mr. C.tlDWELL. I agree with him. we can inquire into it . and the fact being fbund. it would follow that no election took place. there was no act. because no consent and no will. I need not tell my friend from Indiana the difference between that case and one in which there was will and consent. and the act done. and nothing left to inquire about except the motive for the act.

S

Mr. CONKLING

Unknown

CONKLING

Unknown

M

03191873.txt

Will my friend front New York allow me to ask a single question ? Mr. CONKLIN"G. Certainly.

S

Mr. PRATT

Unknown

PRATT

Unknown

M

03191873.txt

If the election is void in the case that I pub. of violence of a squad of soldiers overruling the judgment and will of the members of the legislature. it is because their will was led astray by the employment of that violence.

S

Mr. PRATT

Unknown

PRATT

Unknown

M

03191873.txt

I beg my friends pardon. just there the road forks. It is void for a different reason. If my friend offers a deed in court. and I attack it by showing the signature to be the signature of a raving madmanmad when he signed itwill the Senator say that the court ehoald decide the deed void or voidable because the will of the grantor was led astray? No. sir. the court would avoid it because the grantor had no will to be led astray. Will the Senator say if the man who signed the deed was under the influence of chloroform or drink. if something had been put into his mouth which took away his brains. and ho knew not whathe did. that the act would be avoided because his will was led astray? It would be void because no will was exerted. So. when my friend puts the case of a man. upon pain of death. casting a vote or signing a deed with a halter round his neck. or a dagger at his breast. or a pistol at his head. the act is void. the surreader by my friend of his monoy to a fotpad or a robber. who demands it revolver in hand. is void in law. not because his will is led astray. but because he gives up his will to save his life. In such cases no alternative is presented to the mind. there is no free agency. no exercise of judgment. will. or choice. there can ho none. Volition is wholly absent. and the act is in law and in reason not done. In exploring the legality of the action of the legislature. we may inquire. did intruders and usurpers participate and control the olcotion? If intruders acted under color of membership. the Senator from Iudiana and the Senator from Ohio hold that we cannot inquire into it. no matter how bale[ or brazen their pretension. Ilow. Mr. President. can this right to inquire be denied upon the argument of this report? I read front the speech of the Senator from Indiana: The Senate hs no power to inquire whether individual umnbers of the legisla. tue lave I)e lawftlly elected. becauso each bouse of the legislature is invented with like power tojute of the elections and qualifications ofits own members. The Senate has no power. he says. because the State legislature has the power! Is that the reason I Is concurrent jurisdiction impossible? Our jarispreloico is full of instances of concurrent jurisdiction betweeu the General Government and the States. the fact that the States nosy do a thing. ipsofacto piroves nothing against the right of the Federal authority to do it also. Take counterfeiting the coin : has not the State of Indiana power to punish it. has not the United States the power also? This argument will not do. The State may punish Mr. CALDWELL for the acts charged against him now. but it does notfollow tint our rig!ht to deal with him is thereby lessened. Suppose the State legislature does not and will not inquire who participates in its proceedings. enough members being bribed to refuse iuquiry.although they know that seats are held upon forged certificates or upon no certificates at all. and suppose the man sent here by such a legislature were waistdeep in the proceeding. we cannot. we are told. inquire and judge the election void. though twenty men took part. with no more right to do so than you. sir. have to occupy the British throne. Whymaywonotinquire? Where is theauthority for it? I asked the Senator from Ohio. and he replied that I knew as well as le. I ask again where is the authority holding that we may not inquire whether intruders sat in the legislature of Kansas. and dominated and debauched it? I. toe. must admit that we cannot inquire of the intruders seated nader color of membership. bt I admit it only in submission to reasons and principles equally fatal to tho actiou proposed in the present ease.. What authority says that wi may not inquire into the membership of the legislature. and yet says that we may inquire whether members of the legislature were influenced by one motive or another? Show me authority for one. and I will sho . yon authority for the other. In the recorded sayings of those who have treated these snbjects. we find classified together in the same breath. as identical in the rules -which govern them and place them beyond our reach. the tennre by which the individuals composing a legislature hold their scats. and the motive. pure or impure. by which they are inficenced. Whoever insists upon these authorities. must accept them as they are. and as they weave together in one wei the limitations they impose. If we regard these teachings. the right of a member of a legislature to vote. and his reason for voting. are alike scaled books to us. Dismissing the authorities. if we admit that we may go into the legislature of a State. and ask whether one man voted from. passion. another fron hope. and a third for gain. why may we not ask also whether other men in the same legislature who cast the die of the election. sat there with no semblance of right. mere shameless pretenders and usurpers? If one chosen to the Senate. bribed ton members of the legislature to absent themselves and allow intruders to sit in their seats and wield their powers. if he also bribed yet other mmbers to refuse to inquire into this wrong. and thus won his election. we are told we must accept all this. we cannot enter the sacred portals. because we cannot pass the boundary between State and Federal power. Is this reason. or is it sophistry? But when we enter the labyrinth of motive. with its whited sepulchers. its blasted effigies. its false inscriptions. its backward footprints. its solenn mockeries. its weird glamourwhat Ariadue shall give us the clew ? Motive I Will mistake or surprise do ? A candidate is pledged to be a tariff man in a State where the tariff question overtops all others. he is elected upon a direct promise given to the members who vote for him that he will favor a high protectivo tariff in every emergency. being elected. lie throws off the mask. and reveals himself as an open freetrader. Will that avoid his election? A candidate is represented to be safe. sensible. and wise. but after the election it turns out that he was incurably insane. and known to be so by those who for pay and promise of oficc urged members to vote for him. is he not elected if he received the requisite votes? Suppose a candidate at heart a traitor. and there are traitors in the legislature. and they plot together that. when elected Senator. he shalt assassinate the President and blow uip the Capitol. with all its statues and unique treasures of art. and lie is elected because of this conspiracy. would his election dissolve wheii looked at by the Senate. or must we deal with in. if at all. unuder our power to expel a member? 1 The will of the member must be corrupted." we are told. Let nis see. If a member is threatened with revenge or ruin. nd his veto is so controlled. vill that do? If a mortgage or judgment is brandished over him. until he sees bankrupteyfor himself and starvation for his family. will that " corrupt his will." or will he still bean anointed free agent. exercising the delegated power of his State. whose vote is conclusive upon us ? Lenity upon a debt is promised. when lenity upon a debt may be the difference between prosperity and ruin. A note is indorsed. or a loan of money made. will these "corrupt tl will " A man eseking votes for the Senatc. hints darkly to a nember of the legislature some secret of his family. something which would mildew the reputation of the living and murder the meiory of the dead. and the member says. " I dare not brave you: I would rather surronder my preference than that you should soil my name." would such an approach " crriipt his will" A man seeking his vote. threatens to contest a maubers seat. to charge him with bribery. and to disgrace him. unless be gives him his suffrage. would that "corrupt the will ?" A candidate who has established a newspaperand we are told it is proper for even an sufit candidate to pay $5.000 to a newspaper to magnify and puff hiuia candidate. with a newspaper or newspapers in his interest. promises a member to write him up and make him famous and immortal. or threatens to write him down and blast his characterto procure newspaper correspondents to associate Idm with crimcs of which he never heard. and the member says. " Rather than face a hurricane of filth. rather than such a storin should whelm me. I will vote ." would that "corrupt his will ?" Hope of advantage in politics. or business. or matrimony. hope of getting a bill through Congress. or a pension. or an appropriation for the improvement of a harbor. would these "corrnpt the will?" Logrolling. as it has come to be called. a proceeding in which a member of the legislature might say to another. "I will vote for your candidate for Senator. if yon will voto for ny bill." woili that "corrupt tie will V" In all these instances. if we got the root of the question. the will is controlled. the mind is warped. the consent is trammeled. the vote is captured. the point is gained. as much asif so manly pieces of silver were counted down. Such causes. operating upon the mind. are as mans as the leaves Of the forest or the sands of the ea. Which of them is worse? l each instance the member would vote selfishly. but the measure of his fuilt. is known only to the absolute intelligence. which. penetrating the sordid heart of man. can analyze that black drop there locked unp. called Motive. To sei a subject thorongbly. it must be turned in different lights. Ler. inc present in anonheraspect the question whether she legislature of Kansas elected Amex.spEnzCALplWaLL

S

Mr. CONKLING

Unknown

CONKLING

Unknown

M

03191873.txt

Would the Senator prefer an adjournment at this time. so that he may continue his argument touiorrow ?

None

Mr. STEWART

Unknown

STEWART

Unknown

M

03201873.txt

I will abide the pleasure of the Senateglad to proceed. or willing to adjourn.

None

Mr. CONKLING

Unknown

CONKLING

Unknown

M

03201873.txt

T. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive business.

None

Mr. STEWAR

Unknown

STEWAR

Unknown

M

03201873.txt

I desire to offer a resolution. I do not know but the latter clause of it may come under the objection raised by the Senator from Connecticut. and if so I will not press that part of it. It is a resolution that will cause no expense and no sitting during the recess. but will give us some information valuable for us to have. and will enable us to get it more easily. if we adopt it under the authority of the Senate. inasmuch as it must be done by a subordinate officer and cannot be done by a connittee. than if it is merely applied for by the committee.

None

Mr. ANTHONY

Unknown

ANTHONY

Unknown

M

03201873.txt

I do net kaow but that the latter clause may fall within the ruling of the Chair. If so t will withdraw it.

None

Mr: ANTHONY

Unknown

ANTHONY

Unknown

M

03201873.txt

I think the Senator had better withdraw that portion of it.

None

Mr. FERRY. of Connecticut

Unknown

FERRY

Connecticut

M

03201873.txt

Very well. The Senator has no objection to the first part.

None

Mr. ANTHONY

Unknown

ANTHONY

Unknown

M

03201873.txt

No. sir.

None

Mr. FERRY. of Connecticut

Unknown

FERRY

Connecticut

M

03201873.txt

I modify the resolution by striking out the latter part of it. beginmiug with the word " also."

None

Mr. ANTHONY

Unknown

ANTHONY

Unknown

M

03201873.txt

The Senator from Rhode Island modifies his resolution. The Secretary will report it as modiied. The chief clerk read as follows : asolved. That the Committee on Printingbi instructed toirqniro its the Otishers of bills. rperts. and publi doumento prieteid forthe use of the Senate. and their distribution. and to reort what changee. If any. are necuscry. The resolution was considered by unanimous consent and agreed to. rouR OF METING.

S

The VICE-PRESIDENT

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

03201873.txt

I move that the daily hour of meeting of the Senate be eleven oclock a. Is.. until otherwise ordered.

S

Mr. ANTHONY

Unknown

ANTHONY

Unknown

M

03201873.txt

Say ten oclock.

S

Mfr. SHERMAN

Unknown

SHERMAN

Unknown

M

03201873.txt

I accept that. if it is agreeable to the Senate. I will say ten- oclock. if the Senator from Ohio prefers.

S

Mr. ANTHONY

Unknown

ANTHONY

Unknown

M

03201873.txt

We want to got through with business as soon as possible.

S

Mr. SHERMAN

Unknown

SHERMAN

Unknown

M

03201873.txt

Say half past ten.

S

Mr. CARPENTER

Unknown

CARPENTER

Unknown

M

03201873.txt

It is suggested that the hour of meeting lie fixed at half past ten. I accept that. I want to be agreeable to all Senators. if I can.

S

Mr. ANTHONY

Unknown

ANTHONY

Unknown

M

03201873.txt

The Senator from Rhode Island modifies his motion so as to snake the hiur of daily meeting ten oclock and thirty minutes a. in. The question is on the motion as modified.

S

The VICE-PRESIDENT

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

03201873.txt

If there be no further resolutions. the Chair will call up the unfinished business of yesterday. upon which the Senator from Now York is entitled to the floor.

S

The VICE-PRESIDENT

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

03201873.txt

In the absence of the Senator from Now York. who is not in his place. I offer the following additions to the rules of theSenate. and ask that they be printed and referred to the Committee en Rules: Resolved. That the following be added to thie rules of the Senate: RuL-. 0No debate lmt be in order unless it relate ri. or ho 1ertitent to the quescion betro the Senate. EULF -. Debate may he iosed at any timoe upn any bill or ieiasure. iy t order of twotthirds of the Senators ureedist. after notice of twolt -for boomu.. to that effect. te n -. All bills shall be placed upon the calendar it their order. eud shall be

S

Mr.WRIGHT

Unknown

WRIGHT

Unknown

M

03201873.txt

Let that resolutiou lie over.

S

Mr. THURMAN

Unknown

THURMAN

Unknown

M

03201873.txt

The Senator from Ohio objects to the consideratioa of the resolution. Does the Senator ask to have it printed i

S

The VIGE-PRESIDENT

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

03201873.txt

It had better be printed.

S

Mr. TIUJIUMAN

Unknown

TIUJIUMAN

Unknown

M

03201873.txt

My motion was that it be printed and referred to tie Conammittee Ocr Rules.

S

Mr. WRIGHT

Unknown

WRIGHT

Unknown

M

03201873.txt

No. let it lie over.

S

Mr. THIURMAN

Unknown

THIURMAN

Unknown

M

03201873.txt

Objection being made to its consideraLion the resolution will lie over until tomorrow. The order to print will be made if there be no objeetion. oanIE oF USLNESS.

S

The VICE-PRESIDENT

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

03201873.txt

There are several Senators who are expected to speak oii the pending question. The Senator from Now York is entitled to the floor. but he is not here. There are others. who are expecting to speak. that I do not see now. Perhaps there is some Scnator who is prepared to go on now.

S

Mr. MORTON

Unknown

MORTON

Unknown

M

03201873.txt

I move that the Senate take a recess until one oclock.

S

Mr. CARPENTER

Unknown

CARPENTER

Unknown

M

03201873.txt

I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive basiness.

S

Mr. ANTHONY

Unknown

ANTHONY

Unknown

M

03201873.txt

I will yield to that motion.

S

Mr. CARPENTER

Unknown

CARPENTER

Unknown

M

03201873.txt

If I thought tire vote could be taken on this question now I would say nothing upon it. but if there is no gentleman ready to speak upon it. I have afew suggestions to make in respect to the subject. and I will make them now. I have no desire aid would not detain the Senate under other cirenmstances. but if no one else claims the floor. I will say what I have to say now.

S

Mr. HAMILTON. of Maryland

Unknown

HAMILTON

Maryland

M

03201873.txt

I withdraw my motion. The VICEPRESIl)ENT. The motion for an executive session is withdrawn. and the Senate resumes the consideration of the unfinished business of yesterday.

S

Mr. ANTHONY

Unknown

ANTHONY

Unknown

M

03201873.txt

Mr. President. this is one of the mrest important questions. I thi k. that has been presented for our censideration since we have had a history as a nation. and it presents itself as well in a political as in a moral point of view. 1b is grave question presents itself in a double aspect. In one aspect. it is wholly a matter of fat. having no personal relation whatever with any one involved in or connected with it. in the other. it is essentially a personal uratter. I athe former. it is proposed to set aside an election. in the latter. it is proposed to purge the Senate of a. inember considered not fit or proper to be in it. by expelling him. Is the former. a. mero mjority only is required to effect it. in the latter. a vote of twothirds is necessary. The importance and significance of the difference between the two are at once seen. It is provided in the Constitution of the United States thatEach House shall be the judge of tha elections. returns. and qualifieations cf its own members. And. again. thatEach Hlouse may. with the oneurrence of twothirds. expel a member. In the exercise of she former power. we are to Juirge. and that infers. I take it for granted. that we are to judge of the facts as presented upon the case. and determine their force and effect. In the exercise if the latter power. so unlimited is it in terms. that we may exercise it without a reason or cause. although policy and every sense of right would dictate. if they did not absolutely imply. that it should never be aprieiuusly. wanstonly. or unjustly exercised. It is said. and truly said. that the same powe s are conferred upon this body and the House of Representatives to judge of the elections of their respective oruibers. Both Hlolses are addressed at the sano time and in the same language in that clause of the Constitution. which grants these powers. Bet still is it not apparet that this power. so granted. to judge of the election ef meembers. mast be qualilied or applied differently. as the constituencies of each House. if I may so speak. are so entirely and radically different? The exercise of this power. I admit. will be the same ia both cases where the sam. cendition of things exists. When we get beyond this. and the very elcmonts of the electio change. the application of this power may also clange. Members of the Horse of Representatives are choser directly by the people. Senators are chosen by the legislatures of the States. The Crestitution is explicit here: The Senate of the Tilted States shall be composed of two Senators fiom each State. chosen by the legislature thereof for six years. Eaeh person. therefore. in votingforaniomher oftlieloirse is bruiiglit in his segregated and individsal capacity iu direct relation to that body. In elections. however. to tis body. the legislature. not the memers of the legislature. bnt tIre legislatro rits ai political entity. as anr organized body representing irs this very act of eltoosing Senatcrs the sovereign power anid dignity of the State. and as the solemn act of the State itself. is brought only i direct relation to this body. not the individul nmembers constituting the legislature. bt the legislature as err organized power speaking for the State and annourring the action of the State. Each State shall have two Senators. Therefore the action of the legislature can be the only subject for the judgment of this chamber in determining the election of Senators. And no dorbt. nuder this power. we may inquire whether it was a legislature that chose at Senator or whether it was not some unautlsorized body. whether. as in the case of Asher and Robbins. the legislature had the power at the time tre Senator was chosen todo it. and whether it was done according to the mode and aranuer as prescribed by law. Tio louse of Representatives can equally inquire into tie fact whether the persons voLirng for membors of that House hal the right to vote. but then the inquiry may extend far beyond this as the relal ions between the voter and the House will justify it. The difference ill the application of this power to the act of a legislature in electing a Senator. and that of a person in electing a irnber of the House. niay be plainly illustrated. In the case of the election of a member of the louse. the qualifications of the voter can unquestionably be inquired into. but does any one pretend to claim the power that we can inquire into the qualifications of merrbers of a legislature in order to judge and determine whether a choice of Senators has been made by legally qualified members? Can such a power as this be admitted for t moment to be vested in this body l Never! And why it? Becans. in the lirst place the legislature is a sovereign body. and referred to in tie Constitution ms the only body tifrich eon exercise the right of choosing Senators. and because. next. the legislature is the creature of the constitution of the State. which is air expression of the supreme will of the State. and organized with the power to judge of the qualifications of its owes niemhers. and which. too. as a pririal law in representative government. is irdispeisable to the political entity and moral being of any State. No other power can iefringe upon this right and the bodypolitic remain an independent and free State. Allow any other power to determine who nre to constitute a legislative bod3. and it is the end of a free representative goresrment. Concede to this body the power to inquire as to who shall constitute a State legislature. and therefore to determine who are the members composing it. and you yield at once your whole form of government. Admit this power. and yea make this body the judge. not only of the electiou of its own members. but the judge of the election of urembers of other bodies intended to be of equal power aind dignity within their sphere w ith our own body in its sphere .ad to be as iree as we ourselves are. ard with as full powers of solfprotection as we ourselves posss as a legislative body. I think it unst be observed that there is a manifest qualification of the power when applied to the act oft legislature as eontradistinguished frorn the iirdividual voter for a Representative to the other House. Therefore. as we cannot inquire into the qualification of a member of a legislatire. how is it that we can go behind its expressed will and inquire into the motives of members to ascertain the reason for it? It is the solemn act of a bodypolitic. and it is the act. the result of their expressed will. that is the only effective ting. and that which alone car be considered. and not the segregated conduct of individials. Iciinot. therefore. entertain ing these views. vote for the resolution reported by the committee declaring in substance the election to be void. Always disinclined. as I am. to the exercise of any power not clearly granted. I always regret the exercise of any doublfel power. and have always hitherto opposed it. ard. conceding for the sake of the argumeunt that this is even at doubtfrrl power now attempted to be exercised in setting aside this election. I am. fror its very extraordinary character. and from what I apprehend to be its dangerous tendencies. the more resolutely opposed to it. Why not resort to a power we do possess ir this case. the power of expulsion ? Why not. rather than to a doubtful power. ait all events a power that is contested on this floor as uo power at all by sonee. however clear it may be to others. as the rightful exercise of an undoubted power ? True. it requires mt reater nirtber of votes to effect results. but if the facts show a ease ior avoiding the election on acconos of fraud and bribery. and with the complicity of the Senator on trial. there can be no moral difficulty in asserting our undoubted power of expulsion. I desire to be understood in the exercise of this power of expnlsin. I would that it should never be resorted to bat upon the strictest principles. and never perverted to base uses. I would look witlr solicitude and with apprehension ulion its exercise for acts comnitted before the election of a Senator. ari which the people and their representatives in the legislatre might be supposed to know before th election. Alter the election they are concluded. the Senatoreleot has passed beyond their power. and afterward can only be amenable to this body for his conduct. Happily. in the ease before us we are not pressed beyond tse reasonable exercise of our powers. the acts were eommitted in and about the election. and consummatedsince. in fact all of them being of the res .qut. and because of which the whole thing constitutes one act frono its ineipieney before the election. through the electior. and up to the time when the sioney was paid and the oath of offien taken. Therefore. in every aspect of the ease. I prefer tir exercise of tire latter power. and shall vote accordingly. It is stid that unless we assort this power of setting aside an cleter. -ailrouads audotherpowerfrl corpo etions and combinations may corrupt with impunity riotibers of legislatures. and secure the return of Senators to this chamber entirely in their interest. and yet at the same time the Senators themselves not be criminally cognizant of the corrupt moans used to send them hero. and thus. so fir as their own personal conduct is concerned. not be subject to our censure. and perhaps ought not to be amenable to our power. This is an apprehended evilindeed. I may admit that it. is an irpeniding evil. but still. prudence would suggest that we do not rush upon the exercise of doubtful powers. much less of those not granted. in order to prepare for the redress of evils not yet upon us. and especially when we have. as in this case. the admitted power to redress the wrong alike committed upon the people and upon thi body. I sensitively shrink from the exercise of a power that places the solemn action of a State legislature. and which it is admitted is the absolute right of the legislature under the Constitution. and required by it to ih done. in the grasp of a more majority of this body. I appreciate ti power. and fear as much as any one the influences of railroads and other corporations. of capital antd conubiaations of wealth. in sending Senators into this chamber. but may not. upon the other hand. this more majority be approached by those poworful influences and combinations to unseat a member who might be obnoxious on account of his purity. honesty. and independence. as well as to seat one in their interests ? Examples are not wanting. even in our own brief history. to show that majorities are to be no more trusted here than elsewhere. I can well conceive from my historical and personal knowledge and experience. that tlere are tilues and occasions when I would sooner trust majorities upon the outside of this chamber than a majority in it. A more majority to do these things. either to set aside an election or expel a meniber may have the strongest motives to do either. while generally there must be a total absence of any motive. except that of strict right. with.the twothirds. For twothirds could not well be called upon to expel a member in order to accomplish any legislative objeet. when a majority could do it as well. Mr. President. it was not my purpose to say much upon the legal or constitutional aspect of this ease . it was only to express to this chamber the views that shall regulate tiy conduct in giving tny vote ott this question . but I cannot avoid hero for one moment noticing an argumnt or two submitted by the honorable Senators from Ohio [Dr. Tnuint~iev] and Georgia. [Mir. Nonavoon.) antI. if I itistake not. if I rtuderstood hin. Ihi Senator from Misseeri. [Mr. Scttuax.] It struck me that the whole tendency of their respective arguments was this. that there should be some body somewhero with power to act as the censor of the miembers of the legislatures of the States. It struck tie that tie certainly was the tendency of the argument of lmy honorable friend from Oisio. It was the sum and substance of the arguient of my ionorable friend from Gedrgia that there should be sotue power residing somewhere to judge. dotormine. and correct the rmiscotdnet of members of the legislatures of the States in the election of Senators. atd they iunhesitatiugly said that if there were nosuei power in express terms granted in the Constitution. it ouglht to be. But they asserted that that power was fully confbrred upon this body under that provision which authorizes it to judge of tile elections of Senator by thm legislatures. Now. Mr. President. have we come to this ? Are the States. are the members of the legislatures of the sovereign States of this Union. to pass under the censorship of this body ? True. they may be corrap true. they ray act badlythe people everywhere teay act badlya whole nation may not baidlybut how cat that be helped. nid where but in the people themselves does the retiedy lie? Are we to determine--aro we seaventyfour Senators. botling our offices for six years. responsible to nobody. not either responsible to our own States or to the people. for that period of timeto set ourselves up itt this chamber as censors on the conduct of members of the legislature? Are we to go hehind their act as a body. anl inquiro into the motives of meibers for doing it I Are wo to ask their reasons ? The Senator frouc Maine is to comae into my State. aid inquire into the motives of represtntativts of the people there. supposed to be good unu. luid. if not. that is our misfortune. It is otar misfortuno if they are not good and pure men. and tIme peplo there ought to apply the roittedy. as they have the power and we have not the power to do it. If they send :iupure men here. it is both a shame aud a wrong. but tie rest of the eouutry nst bear with it until rectified by the people or by ourselves when we can properly and legally do it. Let the remaining Senators hold us accountable for our legislation arid personal conduct. If ve "are corrupt here. turn us out. lhold us amenable for our conduct as Senators. But let nob this body. let not Senators outside of my State. the Senator. for example. from California. sitting hty me. cone into my State. atid undertake to put the members of may legislature o triol. and inquire of them. "How did you conie to east youtr vote for Mr. l:IAMlTtoN. cr Mr. DENNIS We avant to know your reasons. Was ttotey given to you. was office held out to you. was a pistol drawn upon yo . were you threatened. were you intimidated. so that under fear you cast your vote ?" And hero I will observe. speaking about fear and duress. and about which so much has been said. that it iust be that whon it goes to the impressment of a legislature as a body and affects it ts a body. I spoke about a pistol being drawn. upon a member. it was upon the occasion of a. senatorial election. and an illustration here. If I mistake not. that occurred in the State of Pennsylvania. that is. if my information is true. and 1 have no reason to questio it. for it is very hard to beat the honorable Senator from rennsylvania [Mr. C. s nur.oa] when either democrats or republicans are in power in that State. especially when the legislature is closely divided in its politics. We Ituow that from experience. W know. orat all events are advised. that when Mr. Bucktlow. lately a Senator here. was elected by one or two votesthere being a democratic inajority in the legislaturethat a member voted with a pistol by his side. Now. in illustration. say upon that occasion there were fifty oin one side and fifty on the other. and this one vote determined the election. Would you call that duressatd niore particularly a dnress of the body of the legislature? One utan there. for the sake of the argument. was under duress out of the hundred. ant would this give you the power to inquire into and set aside the act of that legislature in the election of a Senator ? And for what. if so? Because Otto uiun was fighteued out of one hundred b e. being a democrat. frightened to do what he ought to have done without any idnceument or threat. while all around bim were cool and calm. and never dreamed of hurting or of being hurt. Would Sot undertake to assume jurisdiction. inquire into. and set that election aside? Would you undertake to inquire and to determine whether that member voted in fear. or because he was a deumocrat. and therefore. in allegiance to his party. voted for the democratic candidate? It would be both a troublesome and a delicate inquiry. and would lead to all kinds of assumptions of power. 1. fur one. do protest against tis hotly Pining into my State aiid trying the memnbersof ti legislatre as to thour casousor motives for pterforating a legislativeo futiction. whether from fear or from fatvor. for otfice or for motley. -whther frotit State conssiderations or from personal feelings. whether to seek vengeance or secure favor. for if your power to inquire for one thiig is admitted. you at once miakoit limitless. You may rut the action of tie legislature upon trial. you may ascertain whether it was a legislative body. and whether its action was in conformity to law. You ttay possibly inquire whether one hundred members voted or whether cue hundred muskets voted ill their stead. and this would refer to tire question of duress. if such a term can be applied to a functional legislative body. The honorable Senator from Missouri. [Mr. Sonune.] for the purpose of establishing a distinction or prineile that I cannot precisely ntuderstand. asked a question of the honorable Senator from Delaware [Mr. BiyAtn.] whether the Senate was notthe creation of the Constititiou. Of cotrse it is the creation of the Constitution ! Therefore. is it not an independent body. and has it not aright tojudgc of such things so eitirely connected with itself as the election of its own tuembers?1 I givo the substance asitear a e an. not hiswords. True. bttitcan only jud(ge nder the owers coniferred by theConstittitno. Admit that Senators are not here in an enihassadorial capacity. we are still here utler the limitations of the Constitution. and can only exrise the powers therein granted. we can judge. or do any other thing. only so far as it is authorized by the Constitution. We are here to represent what? To represet the States. thei r sovereignty. rights. and powers. The Constitution says that each State shall have two Senators. to do what. to determine what ? To do and performn all acts and things as prescribed aid required to be done by the Constitution. and nothing besides. The States did not scud us here. nor does the Constitution give us the power. to sit in judgment and decide who composed the members of a legislature. and much less their reasons for any aoeo. however absurd or wrong it may appear to be. if the Constitution fails because of the corruptions of tie people. our form of government fails. and all is brought to a disastrous end. If we cannot get along under the Constitution without undertaking to uproot and upturn all our previots ideas connected with its limited powers. lot us m tknowledge the failure. and let us set towork to make a different nad a better one if we can. If this power ought to exist to hold in check and conect the corruptions of the people or their representatives. lot us make it. let us have it amended. and let us have it fixed that we are to sit here as censors upon tie acts and conduct of the menibers of our legislative bodies in the States. Then let us have fall powers to judge and determine reasons. motives. conduct. everything. This being at body respensible to no 0110 for six years duration.it may be able. I haveio doubt. in the opinion of ate. to give ats fair an examinatio and as impartial a judgment as evei Cate the censor did. But so far as I am myself concerned. I never would give to this body. or to any other. such a power over the members of the legislatures of sovereign States. Such a poer wold be consolidation itself. I have thus briefly commented. and in a very imperfect maenner. upon the legal part of the case. Now let me turn imy attention to its moral condition and political relations. Mr. President. this is a most painful duty we are now obliged to discharge as Sotators. I know the Senator upon trial. Our relations have been friendly and pleasaut. and his deportment and cotidnet upon this lor have beea ntnexeeptionable. His great misfortune lit his aspirationts for a seat in this chamber was that his plane or thought and feeling did not rise higher than the atmosphere of Kansas. The testimony shows a horrible condition of things there both in a moral and a political sense. The honorable Senator from Illinois iMr. Lotxre] has criticised. and I an iot here to say that hte has nfiairly criticised. ihe charauctr aud testimony tnd concldt of some of the prominent wittesses against Mr. CALDWELL. and has denounced them as bad. corrupt tieit. miii unworthy of belief. But however bad and corrupt these titt may MAARdu 20. be. the trouble of the Senator on trial is that they were his associates and friends. or at least coworkers in this matter . and it is admitted by lim that he paid $15.000 to one of them. Carney. and a written agreement to that effect was executed and delivered. under a contract that he. Carney. should not be a candidate for this seat. It is also proved. by a friend of Mr. CaiDWELL. Mir. L. Smnith. that an additional $7.000 went to Carney. in the slupe of expeuscs. mkiig $22.000 altogether. though Carney. while admitting the payment of the $7.000 by

S

Mr. HAMILTON. of Maryland

Unknown

HAMILTON

Maryland

M

03201873.txt

denies that he got it. All this. in itsclf. is not only sufficiently coulpable. but it tends to give tone to the other testimony. touching the purchase of members of the legislature themselves. however unsatisfactory it might be. standing alone. for one cannot Well resist the conclusion that a person who would buy off a candidate would not hesitate to [uy up a voter. Mr. President. we have passed through a cold and a gloomy winter. We have passed. too. through A cold and a gloomny session. The last sesseoa of Congress has been without a parallel in our legislative history. Instead of inaugurating measures to relieve the country from a debauched and a debauching enrrency. to reduce expenditures. to revise the tariff and internal taxes and reduce them. to reduce the Army and Navy. to do something in order to relieve the shipping and agricultural interests from the oppressions which now bear so hard upon them. instead of directing our effort to the accomplishment of these great objects. we have had committees in both Houses composed of leading membersgentlemen of eminent ability. and of the highest integrity of eharactorlaboriousy engaged during almost the whole session in the investigation of fraud. ciirrnptmn. aand of persona misconduct. From the frauds. corruptions. and usurpations il Louisiana. down through the intrigues. speculations. and corruptions of the Credit Mobilier to the bribery and corruptions in Kansas. we have bad committees continually examining. exposing. and reporting the whole session long. so that the very atmosphere we breathed in this and in the other House wes tainted with the impurities thrown up by these investigations. As no respect -was paid to persons. so no one involved in any degree in any of them escaped observation. It was well settled hero that no one should be deprived of the right of investigation on aecont of race. color. or previous condition. whether of character or of position. Men of high degree and men of low degree. Christian statoemen and tradingpolitiians. moralizers and revilcrs. financiers astute and speculators reckless. men impecunious and rich men. men of vaulting ambition. men of prying conceit. were altogether in the snne cnldron. bubblieg and boiling the winter through. The three -witches in Macbeth never sang around a caldron containing more extraordinary ingredients. That session has made for us and for our countrya record of shame. The good that may come of it is that these exposures of error or of guilt. whatever it may bo called. may impress all to do better in the future. even if no highier and nobler motives should prompt us. History is again repeating itself. Can it be that the coreuptions of old Rome should be already upon our young and vigorous state ? Have we reached the matured age of a nation before we are fairly out of the swaddlingclothes of infancy I Rome. true. had no gigantic railroad corporations who. with their wealth and capital. could tamper with the public virtue. and with their power influence the public sentiment. nor had she the great kindred corporations everywhere existing in this country and wielding such a prodigious power. But she had her Appian and other great highways. over which her legions marched to conquest and returned in triumph laden with the spoils of conquered nations. While she had no Credit Mobilier. she had lands to distribute and largesses of money to bestow upon her ceorrupted citizens. She had men of untold wealth. both citizens and senators. Hardly anywhere in the world since has there been more aggregated wealth. and nowhere. before or since. did capital ever exert imre power than it did at Rome in the days of Sylla. Pompey. and Crassus. Senators will pardon me for occurring for one moment to the condition of her senate at this period. and to the character of one of her leading men. It may aid us in criticising our own conduct and condition. rnd avoiding. if not too far gone. the evils it exposes. You all know who Marcus Crassus was. I desire to read a masterly cast of character drawn by a distinguished historian of that celebrated man and senator: Far inferior to many of his poers i monit gifts. literary cult. rn. end milltory talent. lie outstripped them by his boundless activity. and by the iiorevera.to with which he otes to possess all things and to beame allimnportant. Albove all. lie threw himself into speculation. :turchases of estates duitng the revolutian formed the foundation of bis welith . but Ie disdained 1e brce a. of gain. he carried on the businss of buildong in the capital on no extusive scale and with prudence. he entered into parenerebip wviii his freedmen in the mst varied undertakings. li acted as banker otc in and uct of Iomo. it per. son or by his agents . he advanced money to his celleagues in the senate. and .cderoekas it might appento eaeeto works or to bribe the tributuals oi thteir aceount. He was far from nice in the matter of making profit. On eoc shn of the Sallon proseriptons a forgeryli the lists had been proved against him. for which reason Sells made no more use of him thenceforward in afaim of etate . lie did net refuso to accept an inheritance ecaser the testamentary document which contained his name was notoriously forged . he made ao olfction. when his bailiffs by force or by fraicd. dilodged the petty holders ficoi lands which adjoined his swn. lie avoided oite colisics. howover. with eritiinal iusLieo. an lived himself like a genuine moueyed loan ii hosly atd siteplo style. In this way Crassu rosa in the ceotrse of at teiv vetis ftom ati. of ordinaiy sontloria1 frortnns to be the master of wealth which not loIcg bolro his dceath. after".iefraying eaoramons extraordinary expeisces. still aioumnted to 170.550.000 Kestele ost (Zl.751.500.l ie bal bcoses the riehest of ]mieqtclc find thercy. at t Ih samo titme. a great political power. it accorfling to iis eaptession. ea soe ncight ccli himself rich who could not maintain an army from his revenues. one who could do this was hardly any longer a mere citizen. In reality. the views of Crame aimed at a higher object than the Iossossion of the fulleat moneychest in Rome. Hle grudged no pains to extend his connections. Rt nao how to salte by name every burgess of the capital. He refused to no sppliant his assistanee in court. Nqaturo. indeed. hd not done muh for him as an orator. his speaking wa dry. his delivery menotoneus. he had difficulty of hearing. but his pertinacity. which no woariseotmess letered and no enjoyment distracted. overcame suh obstacles. Ie never appeared unprepared. he nver extemporized. and so he became a pleader at all times in requcst cnd at all times rocdy. to when it was no eorogation that a cause was rarely too bad for him. and thea he knew bow to influence the judges not merely by his oratory. but also by his connoctione. and. if necessary. by his gold. Half the senate was indebted to him . his habit of advancing to" i ieonds money willhusil iterest. revocable at plesaro. rendered a ntmber of influential men depenlent on him. ana the more so that. ike a genuine man of business. he mado no distlntion of parties. maintained coomiations on all hands. mid readily loot to evey poe abl to pay or otherwise useful. The nost daringparty letadrs. who made their attaks recklessly in all directions. were carefol not to arrel with Crasns: Ib was compared to the bull of the herd. whom it was advisalIs for none to provoko.-iotenoto Hi.Mstory of Rome. vol. iv. pp. 2426. Mr. President. I thought that at the conclusion of such a session as the lastit might be most appropriate to the occasion. if not. indeed. most profitable to us all. that this portrait of a marked historical character should be brought to the attention of the Senate. I have no comments to make upon it. I could not. if I never so much desired. give more point aud direction to it than it does itself in the simple reading of it. it speaks for itself. Sir. the President. in his late inaugiral. has flown off into the realms of fancy. indeed. into the higher regions of prophecyand predicted a kind of millenninem. when every civilized people would be republican. when the world will become one naiion. aud shall speak one language. and have no more armies and navies. The enthusiasts of old. i their exaltation of the great brotherhood of manl. could d) no more. Mr. President. I fear that our distinguished Chief Magistrate is more hopeful than sagacious. His accuracy of reasonable deduction I must doubt. His is no Baceonian philosophy. But that under the bright sunshine and crisp air of the 4th of March. with all the pageantry and pomp and adulation of incoming or continuing power around him. he gave too loose a teir. to exuberant feling. rather than. upon such a great state occasion. more carefully depending upon a cool judgment. I must confess that. for myself. I am not so hopeful of such great results. Most certainly I do not see them in the future either in Europe. Asia. or even in Africa. and much less in the islands of the sea. And then when we come to our own favored continent. and still further. when we come to our own favored country. what a gloom is already settling around it and upon it. Instead of being a guidingstar to others. as predicted by tho President. I rather fear that it may prove to be an igntis fatuus. leading other and toocredulons nations into the very quagmires of trouble. I confess that I do not see any very great movement. either in Scnegambia or Guinea. toward giving up their nationalities. their government and language. even under the substantial inducemeuts of the fifteenth amendment. to beonio a part of us. I doubt very much whether the Chinese. even. through the operations and the cooperative aid of the Pacific Mail Steamship Company. will be willing. within the next decade. at any rate. to resolve themselves into republicans. abandon their language of characters. and take up with our consonants. diphthongs. and vowels. I doubt whether the German nationality is beginning to dream of dissolving itself as a nation. and consent to be absorbed in a worldnation. and to speak one language. even if it were to sacrifice the mutierqprache. And as for ourselves. sir. I did not see a single appropriation madeand Ithik there is hardly an object anywhere on earth that did not have one in the appropriation bills of the last sessionfor the coustruotion of any establishment for the purpose of beating our spears into pruninghooks and our swords into plowshares. but. alas. on the contrary. great sums of money provided not only to prepare for war for all time to come in this world. but. if it could be. to carry it on in the world to come. [Laughter. I If unity is to compass all good. as our Chief Magistrate would indicate. then. in a restricted degree. how well it would apply to Kansas! In the testimony taken in the case before us. and in that taken in the case of the late Senator Pomeroy. it is shown that the people and legislators of that State speak but one lauguage. have but one mind. and areactuated by one motive. There is a millennium in that State. not one. we most all admit. based upon any moral or religious sentimtent. but nevertheless one resting upon uniformitytho uniformity of bribery. corruption. and villainy. There is no example like it in .ay other State. In Louisiana. Florida. Alabama. Arkansas. South Carolina. only portions of their people have been instrumental in nmaking thema pandemoninms of fraud. corruption. usurpation. aed violence. bt in Kansas there does appear to b a unity of guilt not before paralleled. and. it is to be hoped. never again to be witnessed. Mr. President. what is to be done ? As Senators who feel that the dignity of this body must be shielded. the interest and honor of the country protected. and our own selfrespect vindicated. we must lay our hands apen any sort of corruption wherever and whenever it appears. whet we have the constitutional power to do so. We dare not cornpromosu with it. %e canuoti. in safety to ourselves or with credit to free institutionc. While I may sympathize with thoperson who is to be the subject of icy judgment. I cannot escape the paramount dtety of condunsn lug the act in the aost solemn form known to this or any other legislative body.

S

Mr. CAcDWELL

Unknown

CACDWELL

Unknown

M

03201873.txt

Mr. President. the Senate yesterday. honoring me with attention. the more gratifying becauseI did not expect and could not deserve it. listened to a wearisome statement. I attempted to give some reasons questioning the rightful power of the Senate. of its own mere motion. to dissolve the choice ofa Senator made by the legislature of a State. I will conclude this branch of the subject by alluding briefly to some of the results of adopting the resolution before us. Should it be adopted. it will stand adjudged and recorded. that no choice ofa Senator having been made inKansas in 1871. the seat which was once hold by Mr. Ross has been vacant ever since Mr. Ross left it. The governor of Kansas cannot fili such a vacancy. The Senator from Pennsylvania the other day assumed that he might. but the Constitution shows us that no appointment can be made by the governor of Kansas to fill the place. if it has not been filled by the election of Mr. CALDWELL. And if vacanciesI road the words of the Constitutionhappen by resignation. or otherwise. during tha reces of the legi lature of ay State. the executive thereof may male temporary appointments until the next meeting of the legislature. which shall then fl such vacancies. It is in the case. and only in thecase. of a vacancy which "happens." (and in passing I remind Senators that the word "happen " has Come to be a term of art. from repeatedjudicial and parliamentary construction.) it is only in the ease of a vacancy which " happens" during the recess of a legislature. th at a temporary appointment may be made by the governor. I turn to the act of Congress to learn who may fill the scat which. if this resolution be true. ALEXANDER CaLnwLL does not. by law. hold. I read from the act of 1866: That the legislature of each State which shall be chosen next procerdieg the expiration of the time for which any Senator weas elected to represent said State in Congreoss shall. on the second Tusoimy after the meeting and organization thereof. pro. coed to elect a Senator in Congress. .n the place of such Senator so going out of offict. in the following manner. The legislature " chosen next preceding the expiration of the time for which any Senator icas elected." If this resolution be true. AExAN]DER CALDWELL seas not elected . no Senator has been chosen tn the seat since Mr. Ross was chosen . and the only legislature which under this provision of the statuto could fill it. has ompleted its term and is dissolved forever. I follow this statute to find the section which provides for filling this seat after the resolution on the table shall estaslish that it has not been filled. Another section declaresThat whenever. on the meeting of the Ingislature of ony State. a vacancy shall exist in the representation of such State in the Senate of tho United StatosThat is the case here. if the resolution be truesaid legislature shall proceed. on the second Tuesday after the commencement and organization of its session. to elect a person to fill such vacancy in the Manuer hereinbefore provided for the election of a Sonaor far tfull term. That cannot be done now. because the day has passed. The legislature of Kansas. oblivious to the fact that it had a vacant Senatorship to fill. has lost the opportunity. from lapse of time. and its Sesion. now expiring. will cease before tidings of our action will reach it. The concluding words of this section are. And if a vacancy shall happen daring the session of the legislature. then on the second Tuesday after the 1gislatare shall have been organized. and shalL have no" tics of such vacancy. it shallpreed. &c. That is not this case. That is the case as it would be should Mr. CALDWELL be expelled. because a resolution of expulsion would affirm that. having been elected to his seat. he held it until the resolution operated upon him. and then a vacancy happened. and the happening being during the session of the present legislature. the legislature could proceed. on the second Tuesday after notice of such vacancy. to fill it by an election. If the resolution of expulsion found the legislature not in session. the governor could appoint under the Constitution. This statute was deviosed cautiously by the Judiciary Committee of the Senate. when the Judiciary Committee was the Committee on Privileges and Elections. and swhen its members had become sonmewhat versed in the law applicable to contested elections and to the tenure of seats in the Senate. The statute was intended. along with the Constitution. to cover every conceivable case of vacancy. It was intended to provide for every contingency which judicial or parliamentary foresight could suggest. But the resolution before us presents a case never dreamed of by the men who draughted. nmended. and enacted any statute to be found in the records of Congress. To enable any power to fill this seat. what must we hold next after the adoption of the resolution ? One of two things : either that the statute is merely directory. only a puff of air. to be observed by legislatures when they choose to observe it. or not to be observed at all or that we have found a cases ostisis8 in the statute. Is there any other alternative 7 1 invite Senators to suggest it. Can we get over or around this statute. except by holding either that it is not mandatory and may be disregarded. or else that the statute is silent because it has been left for Mr. CALDWELL to illustrate a contingency never conceived of by any of the statesmen or lawyers who have left their footprints on the sauds 7 The resolution abounds in odd consequences. Several statutes provide that every Senator shall be paid " from the time that the componsatien of his predecesor ceased." Who. if AcnxrNDERO CanwrDnax was not elected. wilt be the predecessor of him who coines next T Should Mr. CALDWELL be expelled. he would be the predecessor of the man who succeeds him. but when we have decided that Mr. CAIDWELL evas never elected. never a member. who. I repeat. is to be the predecessor of him who comes next in order? Manifestly Mr. Ross will be his predecessor. and by act of Congress the nowcomer will receive pay for all the time since the term of Mr. Ross ended. Mr. CALDWELL has already received the pay. and no one will argue that it can be recovered back from him. If we can avoid the election after Mr. CALDWELL has been here two years. we may do it in his iase or anothers at the end of live years. and by the law of the land. should five years elapse before the Senate discovers that. owing to the motives of the members of the legislature. an election was null. "back payt would cut no mean figure in the affair. The compensation of a Senator for six years is now $45.000. and a man elected to a vacancy five years old would receive $45.000 for one years service in the Senate. and at the same time the man adjudged never to have been elected at all would have received $39.000. And yet. Mr. President. we must not flinch. because this is a question of "courage!" The Senator from Vermont tells us if we do not fight it out on this line. it will look as if wo approved of bribery. Tle Senator from Vermont underrates. I think. the intelligence of the American people if he supposes that they eon be hoaxed so easily.

S

Mr. CONKLING

Unknown

CONKLING

Unknown

M

03201873.txt

If he should be reelected. would he not receive pay over again

S

Mr. SCOTT

Unknown

SCOTT

Unknown

M

03201873.txt

My friend anticipates me. I have a yet stronger case to put. A newspaper has been laid on my desk in which it is stated that the friends of the late Senator from Kansas (Mr. Pomeroy) ate moving. and that in the evenb of Mr. CALDWELL vacating his seat. they hope to return Mr. Pomeroy to it. Is Mr. Pomeroy not eligible t Suppose lie should be elected. look at the grotesque plight of the matter of salary and membership. then ! Mr. Pomeroy served in this body during the whole of these same two years. receiving pay for all the.time. If he were elected to the scat now occupied by Mr. CALDWELL after this resolution is adopted. he would come adjudged to take the seat as of the term beginning March 4. 1871. And thus one man wotld be adjudged by the Senate to occupy both seats from the State of Kansas. to be both Senators from that State. and to receive both salaries at and for the same timel I confess my "courage " is a little daunted by such a proposition.

S

Mr. CONKLING

Unknown

CONKLING

Unknown

M

03201873.txt

Will the Senator allow me to ask a question I

S

Mr. FERRY. of Connecticut

Unknown

FERRY

Connecticut

M

03201873.txt

I understood the Senator yesterday to agree that the Senate might declare a seat vacant where the election had been controlled by duress. Would not the same train of consequences which the Senator has supposed to follow in the case of the passage of this resolution follow in the ease of the vacating of a seat which had been filled by duress ?

S

Mr. FERRY. of Connecticut

Unknown

FERRY

Connecticut

M

03201873.txt

As a case possible in supposition. there may be force in the Senators question. As a case applicable to the real transactions of life. it fails from impossibility. It could not occur historically or legally. if military force captured a legislature and coerced an election. that it would be years before a discovery or suspicion of the fact. If a military revolution should swallow a legislature. the Committee on Privileges and Elections being charged on the 11th of May. 1872. to inquire. would be able to report before the 17th of February. 1873. I am answering my friend upon the fact. and the practical sense of the thing. As matter of speculation. if a Senator should be chosen by a regiment of infantry marching upon a legislature. and casting a ballot of bayonets in a joint convention of bayonets. and nobody should know it. or it should not get out for years. I am not prepared to say that some of the difficulties I have suggested might not exist. It has often been said that hard eases make shipwreck of priuciples. and that extreme cases. obscure rather than aid the mind. The suggestion of may friend seems so far from the line of human probabilities. that it is difficult to utilizo it in this discussion. If we can dispose of the case before us aright. we may hope to be equal to other cases when they arise. Mr. President. I leave this branch of the subject. having detained the Senate already too long. and I proceed to consider the question as it would stand. admitting the fallacy of the positions I have endeavored to maintain. I talto up the case now as it must be tried. if the Senate shall hold that. unaided by a statute. it has power of its own mere motion to vacate an election made by a State. I ask. first. if impure mutive in those who voted ba the matter we must judge. how must it be proved. and of how.many members must it be found ? Bribery is a crime . all fraud isa crime. and. like every other crime. it must be proved. So say the books. it cannot be presumed. Conjecture will not do. hearsay will not do. it must be established by legal evidence. To convict a man of a murder not fully proved. is to do judicial murder. Discarding from this volume of questions and answers so much as confessedly would be received in no court of justice. we must extract the facts proved by the remainder. Thisis no easy task. and those who have undertaken it are opposed in their conclusions. The Senator from Wisconsin. who has spent more than twenty years in studying the art of weighing evidence. who has distinguished himself in practicing the profession whose chief faculty it is to ascertain truth. and who sat from beginning to end as a member of the committee and listened to the witnesses. tells us that aupon I all the evidence no upright and intelligent jury could find a single instance of bribery of a member of the legislature. The Senator from Illinois. [Mr. Lo xAN.] another member of the committee. gives is the same assurance. The Sonatorfrom Rhode Island [Mr. AiareOv] also dissented from the report. although lie has expressed no opinion in the case. Throemcmbersofthe committee dissent. The report comes to IIs front tfour mnemsbers. ad with those who sawand board the witnesses almost equally divided. we. who did not see or hear a single witness. must glean as we may from the bare record. JBeforc coming to the question whether bribery is proved. and how much bribery is proved. it will be convenient to determine whether our judgment depends upon the number of members bribed. If one bribe be fatal. we may be relieved from pursuing the details of the testimony. Let us consider. then. how many voters must have been bribed to destroy the election. Expulsion. may be for one bribe as well as for one thousand. The turpitude of the act. not its effect or repetition. is the test in cases of expulsion. Au offer to bribe. miay be enough for expulsion. if a bribe accepted. would be. So a statute punishing bribery. is satisfied by one bribe. as much as a statute punishing perjury. is satisfied by one perjury. The English statute which disables a briber front holding the ufflce. and torfeits the seat. makes one bribe constitute the crime. Why not? The British statutes. remember. recognize and assume the election. because they forfeit it. I call attention to the fact that. running through the English statutes. descending from one to another. is a fixei and identical phraseology. treating the election as a fact. and then workiug. as penalty and forfeiture in the briber. disability to hold the office. Observe the language employed by Parliament. and adhered to again and again in succeeding enactments : That every person and persons so giving. presenting. or allowing. mking. promIsing. or engaging. doing. acting. or proceeding. shall be. and are herey declared and enacted to be. disableld and incapacitated upon euch election to servo in Parliament for iuch contuy. city. town. boroogh. port. or plae. and that such person or persons shall be deemed and taken. and arc hereby declared and enactsdto be deemed and taker. no members in Parliament. and shall not act. sit. or have any vote or place in Parliament. but shall be. and ore hereby declared and enacted to be. to all intents. cuotructions. and purposes as if they had never been returned or elected members for the Parliament. Here is a manifest implication that an election is not void on general principles because a bribe entered into it. The very basis of the statute is that at common law. such an election is valid. and that to get rid of its results. a statute is needed. Recognizing the election. the statute proceeds to deprive the guilty man of its fruits. If no effectual election had occurred. if an act of bribery had made it null and void. it would be absurd to declare that the briber should "be disabled and ineapacitated upon such election to serve in Parliament." and that he should be deemed and taken no member. " and shall not act or sit." andshall be. "to all intents. constructions. and purposes as if he had never been returned or elected." Such longuage could never creep into a series of statutes. if. without any statute at all. the election itself were void. and the man voted for had no footing whatever by reason of it. For the purpose of setch disabling statutes. one instance of bribery is allsufficient. and so it will be fnr the statute. which I predict will soon fiud a place among tilo acts of Congress. But in the absence of a statute. bribery. to undo an election ab initio. must. I think. be bribery which controlled it. Superfluous votes tainted. will not tuern all honest votes to ashes. If. after casting out every corrupt vote. a mpjority of unbribed votes remains. the majority will stand. and stand on the law of majorities. Any other rule would work monstrous evil and injustice. Assume that one bribe given to a member of the legislature. vitiates the election ofa Senator. and see to what such a doctrine might )cad. Let me put a case. The twohouses first voteseparately. each house chooses the same person. in one house he receives forty majority. there is no pretense of any bribe there. in the other house he receives five majority and there is an allegation of one bribe in that house. The two houses having agreed. no vote in joint convention occurs. and upon the rule that a single venal vote "poisons the whole election." two things follow: first. one bribe in one house not only vitiaies the election in that house. but vitiates the election in the other house also where there was no bribe at all. and secondly. although there was a majority of fortyfour unbought votes in the two houses for the same person. the election would fall whenever the one bribe in one house came to light. The law has no analogy for such a dogma. "False pretenses" is an offense by statute. "cheats" an offense at common law. but every lawyer knows that the false pretense must accomplish the purpose. it must be the means by which the signature. the money. or the goods were obtained. It must. in short. be the .urningpoint. The prosecutor must prove that. but for the partiualar representation alleged to be false. he would not have parted with the money or the property. The relation of causs and effect. is part of the philosophy of the law. Must not bribery. to be ground for destroying an effect. be the cause of the effect ? Must it not have influenced the result? Must it not be something more than a mere concomitant ftct? New .Jersey and New Hampshire formerly elected members of the House of Representatives by general ticket . an act of Congress has directed otherwise since. Each voter. in voting for one Ropresentative. voted for all the Representatives of the State. If the doctrine now urged upon us. that one bribe will vitiate an election. not disable the briber. or subject him to expulsion. but altogether undo the election itself. be the law. one bribe accepted by any voter in the State of Now Jersey. would have prostrated the election. not only as to the man by whom or for whom the bribe was paid. but as to all others for whom the bribed vote was east. Would it not? Suppose two Senators are to be elected in a legislature together. at the same time. as has often occurred. they are voted for on the same ballot. and one of them has bribed a member of the opposite party . shall it be held that the ballot the bribed member votes. is void pro tanto. that is. onehalf bad and onehalf good. that it takes effect as to the name upon it which he was not specifically bribed to vote for. and takes no effect as to the other. or that it is wholly void. and. being void. makes void every other vote east for both of the two persons who receive the majority? So in the case of State officers: a governor and eight other nominees run upon the same ticket. one candidate or his friend. pays money to a lonnger about the polls to vote. and he votes the whole ticket. a majority of one hundred thousand may pronounce for that ticket. but the election is void. we are told. because one man was bribed. At the last election. the State of New York elected one member of the House of Representatives at large. Ile received about sixty thousand majority. and now we are asked to hold that. if it could be found that one maim was bribed to vote for him. his electiou would be void. Mr. President. does not such a proposition shock the common sense of every mail? Does it not shock every mind able to put two and two together I When you deal with a statute like the English statute. which denounces the man who offered the bribe and punishes him. it is all plain sailing. but the idea that the expressed and recorded will of nine hundred thousand electors in New York. can be stifled and wiped out because one loafer got a glass of grog or a ham for his vote. is enough to excite a smile upon the frescoed faces of the fathers of the Republic. Indiana last year elected two members of Congress upon a ticket at large. The struggle was hot and the vote was close. A few votes changed. would change the result. and this was known beforehand. It is not to be presumed that lax nmurals prevail in Indiana. or that an instance could be found in which a political mendicant managed to get money from a committee or a polldriver. But proclaim the doctrine that meat. drink. or money given to one man to influence his vote. upsets the whole election. and slippery may be the footing of the Representatives elected by only a hundred majority. in a canvass in which both sides strained every nerve. and in which all the people of a great State were enlisted! The State of Pennsylvania elected at large three Representatives. and by a majority of about forty thousand.

S

Mr. CONKLING

Unknown

CONKLING

Unknown

M

03201873.txt

Fortyseven thousand.

S

Mr. SCOTT

Unknown

SCOTT

Unknown

M

03201873.txt

Fortyseven thousand. There was loud talk about free doings in the City of Brotherly Love. and I admonish the Senators from that State to bethink themselves what may betide Pennsylvania and her interests. if fortyseven thousand majority may melt away in the breath of a witness who will swear to a single instance in which inducement was given for a vote. Again. if we adopt the rule that one bribe. instead of disabling the briber. as by statute it could be made to do. and instead of being groend of expelling the briber. altogether does awaywith the election. what difference does it make who gives the bribe? I beg the attention of Senators to this point. If an election falls because of one bribe. manifestly it must be because the bribe operates upon the election. it operates upon the proceeding itself. You overrule the election . you vitiate that. Does it matter. then. who pays the bribe? Need the particular person voted for. be particeps crlmin is ? Not at all. as regards the election. His criminality. is important only when you come to expel him or to punish him. If one bribe will destroy an election. the public is at the mercy of every gamester. every election is at the pleasure of one corruptionist. and by his permission. An opposing candidate. or any one of his partsans. may defeat the popular will. Whenever two candidates contest a congressional district. eaoh may say. "I will plant a seed which will destroy the result. if my competitor succeeds. I will causea bribe to be paid. or I will be able to make proof that a bribe was paid. and this will overthrow the whole proceeding." Is such a weapon to be put into the hands of lobbyists and strikers ? Shall such an ingredient be introduced into the alcheiiy of politics. when the seething caldron already bubbles with gendering evils. and shall it be done in the name of public virtue ? Bribed votes in a legislature. are valid or they are void. they count. or they are blanks. The Supreme Court says they count. Both the reports in the case of Potter and Robbins say they count. The English rule holds that bribed votes do not count in a popular election. I read from Male on Elections. page 347: Ilesides the statutory provisions against this offense. every vote purchased by bribery is void by the common law of Parliament. the person who gave his veto under sash ifctneaco being onsidecred as though he had not voted at all. Admit that the vote is void. as the most rigorous rule affirms. and then bribed votes being like votes cast blank. or not cast at all. must they not influence the result when deducted in order to undo it? Suppose ten stragglers wander into a legislature engaged in electing a Senator. and drop each a ballot in the box. and when discovered it turns out that all the members of the legislature voted. their votes elected. and the proceeding is complete. could It be held that the casting of the ten votes by the stragglers vitiated the election? But. on the other hand. if it were necessary to count the votes of the tea stragglers in order to make up a majority. and deducting them no

S

Mr. CONKLING

Unknown

CONKLING

Unknown

M

03201873.txt

he gave ns his calculation. the figures given will. I fear. prove lesseliable than from their forcible statement we had a right to espoe The Senator told us. with circumstance. and not without solemnity. that in his library ie lad read every word of the testimony. with his pencil in his hand. It has been said that one star differeth from another star in glory. So one Senator with a pencil in his hand. differs from other Senators in arithmetic. The honorable Senator told us that 13 votes changed. would have defeated the electiorf of Mr. CALDwrrL. To show the importance of understanding the testimony. and the danger of putting trust in sharpened pencils. I ask Senators to open the volumo betore them. at page 362. and say by what feat of mathematics 13 votes deducted as corrupted votes. would reverse or defeat this election. Mr. CALDWELL received 87 votes. all others received .36 votes.

S

Mr. CALDWELL

Unknown

CALDWELL

Unknown

M

03201873.txt

majority over all was 51. Twentysix votes must have been changed to leave him without a majority. Twentysix votes must have been taken from him. and given to his competitors. to leave him without a majority. The whole number of votes in the joint conveution was 123 . necessary to a choice. 62. Mr. CALDWELLS vote being 87. deducting 62. he had a majority of 25 more than were necessary. Would changing 13 of theso votes change theresult? No calculation. except of an eclipse. could so becloud the fact. lie bad 25 votes more than wore necessary to a choice. deduct 13. and 12 votes remain--i more than werenokossary. Put the 13 on the other side. and 12 votes still remain above the needed number. Twentysix must be found to have been bribed in order to leave no legal and honestmajority. There can be no escape from this if Daboll and the multiplication table are to be believed. and I bring it to attention. partly to show how carefully and how prayerfully the honorable Senator from Ohio pored over this testimony. and also to show incidentally what a poor judge of figures Daboll was. I call attention to another fact eppearing on this page. There was no secret ballot. the vote was viva roce. every man rising in his place when his name was called and naming his candidate. Thus we know who voted for Mr. CALDwELL and who voted for others. Mr. Sidney Clarke. on his oath. denies that his name was withdrawn. or any votes transferred from him to Mr. CnAnwErt. upon any understanding or corrupt agreement yet votes originally for Mr. Clarke are suspected to have been bough. But if we deduct every vote in both bouses east for Mr. CALDW ELL which had at any time been east for Mr. Clarke. even then Mr. CALDWELL has a majority. The Senator from Ohio. having fallen into the error of supposing that thirteen bribed votes would change the result. said he thought he could discover from the testimony that there was reason to believe that so many votes had been contaminated. but now. knowing that twentysix is the smallest number which can affect the purpose. will it be contended that we can find on our oaths that so many members of the legislature of Kansas were bribed? Nothing approaching this has been intimated. The report negatives the idea. The report says that. taking all the evidence together. those who make the report believe that "some members of the legislature received money and others promises of money." The Senator from Indiana has put the case. because he was compelled by the facts to put it. upon the ground that a single instance of bribery is fatal. Surely he would net have assumed this extreme position. if the case had not required it. But. Mr. President. we are advised not to work out the question of bribery by cold figures or cold facts. not to be particular. hut to go largely on the ground that Mr. CALDWELL has no business here anyhow. whether e was elected honestly 6r not. Fault is found with the fact of his being selected at all. or being sent here. or ever thinkig of coming here. His candidacy for the Senate is treated as an affront to the eternal fitness of things. and yet. at the same time. his whole conduct in the Senate has been strongly bepraised. The complaint seems to be that he was too obscure to be Senator. One Senator says he had "no political status." another Senator says "he was unknown to political fame ." another says "he was only a business man." I will not conceal the surprise with which I listened to these comments. I supposed it was the boast of our system of government that every man. though he spring from thesod. has a right as much as any other man to surmount the last rung in the ladder of political distinction. I supposed American children were taught to strive to raise themselves to the highest honors of the Republic. What is meant by this talk of its being presumptuous for a business man to aspire to the Senate? I do not understand it. There is no hereditary peerage here. no aristocracy through which men obtain seats in the Senate. What must a man have done before he can be pardoned for raising his eyes to the Senate. and allowing himself to be named for a seat in it ? What must be his antecedents ? Must he have stood on the perilous edge of battle. and written his name in the purple testament of bleeding war ? Must he have edited a newspaper. or two or three newspapers ? Must he have made speeches at the hustings T Must he be a writer of essays ? Must he have lectured in the lyceum f Must he belong to a learned profession ? Must he be a phrasemogor? What is the standard of the honorable Senator from Ohio ? Distinguished at the bar. that Senator rose to the bench. and having well worn the ermine. he went back to the bar. To reap golden harvests in the field below. But must all men wear such honors. before they can be consideredas possible candidates for the Senate? Or. is it enough that a man among his neighbors and fellowcitizens stands well as a brave and honest soldier in the battle of life? A. Senator has just handed me papers. which. looked at on the instant. seam certificates of the past standingofMr. CALDWELL. One bears date as far back as the Mexican war. and bears the signature of Franklin Pierce. who. by the by. was himself troubled with a plentiful lack of "political status." His mention for the Presidency. provoked one of the good sayings of that inimitable wit. Governor Corwin. The tidings being read in the hearing of a number of persons that Mr. Pierce was thought of for the nomination. Governor Corwin said solemnly. "Franklin Pierce proposed for the Presidency ! Gentlemen. none of us are safe." There being a firm of Pierce & Chapin. who made wagons in New England. when the papers reached that neighborhood announcing that Mr. Pierce had been nominated. a leading citizen said he was a democrat and was satisfied with Pierce. but he should have liked it better if it had been Chapin. Franklin Pierce and Winfield Scott. and others. seem to have signed these papers. and they certify the integrity. industry. and capacity of the man who undergoes a painful ordeal today. If these certificates be trite. and Mr. CALDWELL had been elected without disreputable means. he might. I think. be pardoned the presuciption of appearing here. But. sir. Mr. CALDWELL is not indebted to himself. or to his merits. nor alone to his money. for being chosen Senator. It was not Mr. CALDWLL who was electedi as I read the evidence. it was the city of Leavenworth. What politicians know as "the shrieks of locality" prevailed in the election so largely that I am moved to say. as I have sometimes thought. that locality is perhaps the first element of American great.1

S

Mr. CALDWELLS

Unknown

CALDWELLS

Unknown

M

03201873.txt

had said. "Mr. Carney. would yon not rather have a foreign mission. would you not rather be governor of a Territory. would you not rather be an Indian agent ?"-which. according to my friend from Nevada is "the potentiality of amassing wealth bcyonafth6 dreams of avarice"-" if so. I will obtain you one of these offices." Had that been the bargain. the public money would have paid Carney. CaTriWELur has at least the redeeming fault of having paid his own money. Suppose Mr. CAIDVNEIL had said. "Mr. Carney. my friends and myself will support you next year for governor of Kansas." and it had been so agreed. would that be bribery of the legislature of Kansas Every statute and every legal definition says that bribery is "the gift or promise. either of money. office. or any other lucrative consideration." But it is said that retiring Carney. influenced the legislature. because it reduced the number of eandidates. As Carney has been presented to us. if an injury was inflicted upon Kansas by depriving her of a chance of sending Carney hero. it was rough on Kansas. rLaughter.] There are toward half a million people in Kansas. and I hardly think no eligible person could be found because Carnoy withdrew. His withdrawal did. however. reduce the number of candidates. Casting lots. would do this also. Suppose Carney and CALDWELL had said. "Let us east lots to see which shalt withdraw. if we are both candidates we shall destroy each other. Leavenworth will have no Senator ." and lots had been east. They would have resulted in favor of the one or the other. and one would have retired. Would that have been bribery of the legislature of Kansas? Again. suppose Mr. CALDWELL had said. "Mr. Carney. we cannot both be Sen ator. we mast refer this to mutual friends. will you leave to the committee to say which of us shall be presented I" and it bad been so agreet. it would have reduced the number of candidates. but would it have been bribery of the legislature of Kansas ? Suppose CALDWELL had published libels on Carney and blackened him. suppose he had procured libels to be sworn to. knowing they were false. and thus Carney had been driven from the field. I ask. first. whether it would affect the validity of CALDWELL S election. and second. would it be bribery of the legislature of Kansas? If CALnwELL had blackened the character of Carney. it would be infamous. it would be ground oil which we might expel him if brought within our risdiction. but it does not therefore affect his election. Suppose CAT.nwuLL had killed Carney in a rencounter. suppose he had challenged him to the field of honor. as it once was called. afd slain him in a duel. to get rid of him as a rival. this would have diminished the nimher of candidates. it would have rendered it impossible to vote for Carney. which Carneys withdrawal did not do. it would have been infamous in CALDWELL. it might have enabled us to expel him. but could you. Senators. with your oaths upon you. decide that no election took place in Kansas because CALDWELL killed a rival before the day arrived 7 W are not without authority upon the question whether paying mmoy to Cauey can be held bribery of members of the legislature. It seems notto have been the ancient or the modern law of Parliament that paying a bribe to one man was bribery of another. Buying off a rival qandidate. was held not to bebribery in an election. Under the British statutes against bribery. it was not held that paving a bribe to one man to influence the veto of another was bribery of that other. or bribery in an election in which the man paid had no vote. I read. from Male on E lections. a statute passed so recently as George III: By the 49 George UtI e. 11S. Icommonnly called Mr. Girnos net.) far prevent. ing the obtaining of seat in Parliament by corrupt practies. aflor reciting that the promiso of any gift. oco. -to.. to procure the retourn of any momb r to servo in Parliament. (if not given to the use of some person havling a right to act as returningol icr. or to veto at such election.) was not bribery within the meaning of S George H. c. 94. &o. The third persons there referred to. w~rc not Carneys in a republican government. where no man dominates another. They were persons belonging to a proprietary class. able. for special reasons. to control the siufrages of their tenants and dependents. The influence of money paid to one holding relations of control over a voter. is obviously greater than if they were equals. and yet. even in such a case. a. recent and special statute was deemed necessary to attach a penalty to paying money to one not himself a voter. I here take leave of the Carney transaction. reprobating it as disreputable and wrong. but believing it inapplicable to the question of the validity of the election. as distinguished from the unworthiness of Mr. CALDWELL himself I have done with this ease. I leave it. believing that the discussion will do much to concentrate aburning focus of indignant public attention upon the groveling agencies which profane elections. The dormant forces of the State and national governments will. I hope. be reused. States should pass laws to punish the briber and the bribed. and Congress also should act. It maybe declared. as theBritish statutes declare. that the briber shall be disabled. and he mav be penished like other malefactors. A statute may forfeit the office when obtained by bribery. even when the successful candidate is innocent. and others pay the bribes. It mayimpose an oath upon every man on the threshold of bothHouses. purging him of bribery. and taking the oath falsely. will be perjury. and ground for expulsion too. Such provisions will be a sad inscription on the statutebook. but not so sad. as arecord in the Senate that noralityin Americahas obbedso low that we are forced to act without law and against law in despair of other methods. Above statutes. however. is public opinion. Whena wholesome and rugged sentiment is awakened in this regard. men will no longer in their own behalf scuffle for place in the purlieus of legislatures and of nominating conventions. they will keep aloof. it will be disgraceful and fatal to appear electioneering and manipulating for themselves. They will wait until the office and the people seek them. But meanwhile. and always. we must adhere to the law. whether it works hardship or immunity in a particular case. Mr. President. I have been brought to these eeulesios. well knowing how some of them may grate upon the sensibilities of those. who. shocked at the drama of depravity enacted in Kansas. have not stopped to consider the mode in which it may be legally chastised. I am not unmindful of the disfavor to be earned by seening to stand between transgression and retribution. Neither am I ignorant of the applause to be won now in the rble of avenger and austete reformer. But we are only the sworn ministers of the law. and in our oaths is the alpha and omega of our duty. When we hear that a local court or jury in a trivial case. swayed by manifestations out of doors. and canvassing the popularity of the verdict or jadguint to be rendered. has swerved from the law or the evidence. we dubiously shake our heads. lament the weaknessofjudges. and wonder whether. after all. the time has not come to abolish trial by jury. Senators. let us. the elect of States. sitting as judges and jurors. see to it that here no sail is trimmed to catch a passing breeze of applause or acclamation. Let us see to it that no coward thought of praise or blame creeps into the wavering balances in which truth is so be weighed. When the din and sensation of this hour are forgotten. when we have left these seats forever. when the volume of our lives shall be closed. when the relics of these times shall be "gathered into Historys golden urn." let there be found in this painful case a record showing that the American Senate was cain enough. firm enough. trustful enough to maintain the genius. the spirit. the methods and the safeanards of she Constitution as our fathers gave them to us.

S

Mr. CALDWIILL

Unknown

CALDWIILL

Unknown

M

03201873.txt

I ask the Senator from New Jersey to yield to 11e for a single moment. and at the same time I would ask the Senator from Now York to favor me with his presence for a moment. I desire to make a few remarks of a personal nature. called forth by an allusion made by the Senator from New York.

S

Mr. SCHURZ

Unknown

SCHURZ

Unknown

M

03201873.txt

Very well. sir.

S

Mr. FRELINGEUYSEN

Unknown

FRELINGEUYSEN

Unknown

M

03201873.txt

It may be known to those Senators who read the Washington Chronicle. of this city. that on the morning of the day after I had addressed the Senate on this subject there appeared an article in the Chronicle severely eriticising my speech. and stating that it was a wellknown fact that this immaculate reformer was in the habit of receiving $200. and had done so in the late campaign. for the political speeches he made.

S

Mr. SCHURZ

Unknown

SCHURZ

Unknown

M

03201873.txt

I never saw the article and never heard of it until this moment. Mr. SCnlURZ. I merely desire to say that the Senator. in all probability. if he did not see it in the Chronicle. it having been so widely scattered throughout the newspaper press of the country. has seen it in some other paper.

S

Mr. CONKLING

Unknown

CONKLING

Unknown

M

03201873.txt

Never in connection with this case. and never lately.

S

Mr. CONKLING

Unknown

CONKLING

Unknown

M

03201873.txt

"Never in connection with this case. and never lately." but he has seen it.

S

Mr. SCHUEZ

Unknown

SCHUEZ

Unknown

M

03201873.txt

In times past. yes.

S

Mr. CONKLING

Unknown

CONKLING

Unknown

M

03201873.txt

I was a little surprised. after all the friendly discussions that we have had during this winter. discussions so courteous after so arduous and bitter a presidential canvass. that the Senstor should make an allusion in his speech which it seemed to me. as it must have seemed to every one who had seen these rumors. bore directly upon me when he spoke of one who made speeches advocating the cause of this or that party for $200 a day. I think it will be agreeable to the Senator to ]Know that this entire story is an absolute and unmitigated fabrication. that the humble individual who stands before him not only did not ask or receive $200 for any of the speeches he made in the last campaign. but did not receive a single cent.

S

Mr. SCHURZ

Unknown

SCHURZ

Unknown

M

03201873.txt

As the Senator is especially addressing me. shall I understand him now to refer to the last campaign alone. or does he mean by his statement to cover previous campaignsI

S

Mr. CONKLING

Unknown

CONKLING

Unknown

M

03201873.txt

The Senator knows very well that a little over a year ago charges of a similar nature were made against me in the Neow fork Tinies. that I took occasion to reply to those charges upon this floor in every detail. and that I pronounced the charges connected with this subject. attributing to me the exaction of large sums and all that. unmitigated slanders. As to the late campaign. I desire to say to the Senator. cnd take this opportunity of informing the Senate aid those who may have seen the reports referred to. that not only did I not receive or exact or take $200. but not a single cent. and in order to inform the Senator more particularly still. so that when he shall have occasion to speak on this subject again he may know what is the truth. I will tell him that during that late campaign I received. unsolicited. uncalled for. unsuggested. a small remittance from liberal republican sources in New York to cover my outlays. which remittance covered about onehalf of what I had paid myself out of my own pocket for campaign documents. Not only. I say. is that charge false. but whenever any compensation during that campaign was offered me. and it was so in perhaps a dozen instances. I uniformly refused to take a single cent. Bet let me express my surprise that after a session like the one we have gone through. when the bitter controversies of the campaign seemed to have been utterlly forgotten. after we have carried on all the discussions occurring in this body in a courteous and friendly spirit. now at last. unprovoked. a Senator should feel called upon to make so insidious an allusion as that. I must confess that I do not understand the propriety of it. and I am surprised at the spirit of it. This is what I have to say to the Sonator from New York. I do not wish to engage in any personal discussion with him. We have had such before. and if I do not further interrupt the tenor of these debates by continuing such things now. the Senator knows very well that it is not from any apprehension of the consequences.

S

Mr. SCHURZ

Unknown

SCHURZ

Unknown

M

03201873.txt

I ask the Senator from New Jersey to indulge me oni moment. The Senator from Missouri has chosen to seize upon this occasion to do two things: First. to exonerate himself from charges made against him. With that I have nothing to do. at least I should have nothing to do hut for one fact. to whichi I wilt allude in a moment. Secondly. she Senator takes occasion to read me a lecture in regard to an argument or illustration I introduced to the Senate. I deny his right thus to criticise me. and I say to him that hu puts himself in the attitude of assuming that he alone has been guilty of this practice. that it is so exceptional and exceptionable that it has not prevailed with others. but with him alone. However that may be. I say to the Senator that. whether he has or has not received $20 a night for speeches. I shall. on any occasion when a question in the Senate is to be tested by the inquiry. comment on the propriety of receivIng money for such services. I shall ask. what are the distinctions beteween its receipt in such a case and in another ? I have no apology to make to the Senator from Missouri. but I stand by the propriety and fitness of what I said. One other word. Mr. President. If the honorable Senator from Missouri on this floor has ever denied that money was paid him for making speeches in past campaigns I did not hear it. I should grieve to hear it. I repeat. that the Senator may hear me. I should grieve to hear him deny that money has been paid to him in past campaigns fur making political speeches. He forces me to say this because he arrai gns me and reminds me that on a previous occasion he denied charges made in the Nte York limtes. Yes. Mr. President. I heard him deny charges made in the Nos York 2inis. I did not hear him. and I venture to predict I shall never hear him deny in my presence that he has received money in past campaigns for making political speeches. I hope the Senator will not put me to the locality. the occasion. and the time. If he should. I might feel called upon to respond.

S

Mr. CONKLING

Unknown

CONKLING

Unknown

M

03201873.txt