Datasets:

Eugleo

/

us-congressional-speeches

like 0

My friend did disagree all the way through. I think.

S

Mr. MORTON

Unknown

MORTON

Unknown

M

03101873.txt

I do not think that has anything to do with the case. and the Senator oaght not to use that kind of argumneut. I stated in the Senate that I dissented from that report. it is entirely immaterial on what grend I dissented from the reportwhether as to the conclusion or the statements of fact. makes no difference. I have a right to put my dissent on such theory as I see proper.

S

Mr. LOGAN

Unknown

LOGAN

Unknown

M

03101873.txt

I do not want to be placed in a false position. I understood my friend to agree to the whole report. except as to the resolution. and I think his remarks. as recorded in the Globe at the time the report was submitted. will show that he dissented from the conclusion. and I think the Senator from Rhode Island ([Mr. AreTaoNY] made the same dissent. He dissented from the conclusion.

S

Mr. MORTON

Unknown

MORTON

Unknown

M

03101873.txt

You may put it on that ground. but we dissented from the report. and I most emphatically do dissent from it now. I do not care what ground you put it on. I am not compelled to agree that everything stated in the report as to the testimony is the fact. I do not say tiat the report falsifies the testimony. but I have a right to say whether a maan is contradictory or not. and form my own conclusions as to testimony. and that is what I am doing.

S

Mr. LOGAN

Unknown

LOGAN

Unknown

M

03101873.txt

Mr. President. I read an extract from the testimony of Mr. Spriggs: We had a roll of the nenate and of the house snd kept them. and we would compare notes. and then such a member of the committee woui be sent that day or at nech a tinie to see such members (if tice house. and such snother one to see se. body else. whoever we thnht would be the best man for that particular place. and then we wontld loer again at such another hour. and report what we haddone ald what success we had hail. &nil in se quite alimiher of times. I do nut know how many. In mating th report and consparing notes there wa one inenber of the commritteo would report. in calling over the nsmes be would come to sul and such a man and he would say. " We hail better list count that ll yet. that is iiider negotiation. and ho is a little too high . I think I can bring him down some." Question. By " negociatiion ." was th.t a bargain for a prico I Answer. Yes. that was a bargain for a price. Question. How miany occurrences of that kind were there? Answer. There wa baut one man that made that kind of reports. Qucation. Who was he? Answer. That was Lea. T. Smith. bat still I am totally unprepared to say the number of times. Question. Did any other member of the committee report negotiations of that sort I Answer. No. sir. Qiueston. Of smmbers being approached in that way? Answer. No. sir. I have no recollection of any othr member of the committee doing it. Question. Was there any understanding in the committee that Me. Soith was the meniber of the committee wche was to conduct. ilegotliations of tliat kind? Answer. Well whether there was anything said or not I d not know. but there was a general kind of consent that lie was to do that busins s. Question. Herr many members did he report being in negotiation I Answer. Uinit is what r say I could not tell. qaito a number. I can give ons or two instances that rear toiy miii. Questioi. Can yon remetber their names ? Answer. I cal remelber O1e 1aeU10 very distinctly. Question. Whoss nateI Answer. It wan Mr. 1. 0. Sears. Hs happened to be the senator from =37 own distriet. Question. Can yo recollect any other narmes? Answer. Tt does seel to me. since I liav hoard Sned cowsme called bore today. that that was one. bet it had passed out of my mind. Since I heard it salled tore today. I thought that liac wAs another member mentioned there. Qucotion. Were there other members mentioned there Answer. Yes. qito a umber. Question. Did he reporc to this committee that lie tod agreed with any of the members upon a price ? Answer. Les. ar. several. and Tir. Sc rs. I asked iim the question. I think that is about the oaly question I asked him touching that sub.ject. I asked hin what Mr. Sears asked. "te said $5.000. lit said he had offered him $2.500. and ho could not give the five thousand unless he could net secure enougli without it. And there is much more of the same oharaoter that I have not time to read.

S

Mr. MORTON

Unknown

MORTON

Unknown

M

03101873.txt

That is all hearsay.

S

Mr. CARPENTER

Unknown

CARPENTER

Unknown

M

03101873.txt

My friend can make his speech when his time comes. I have no doubt. Mr. Spriggs further testifies as to conversations with Mr. CAI.TWccLa: I will say this much in the beginning: about the time that this committee was acraegeid. I hail a little conversation with lMr. CALDWELL. Qesion. What was that I Answer. T told Mr. CkLT5WLL the condition upon which I would support him. and after we agrcd upon those terms. be made some suggestions to me as to wha he iituted silt) e o. Question. What were those conditions open wich yoi were to support him I Answer. Tho .sndiltiets were. that two yearn ftoa that time lie would just as earnestly wor for the election of T. Carney. Goveror herey. 00 Mr. Carney and Mr. Carricy immediate friends. including niyself. would work for him then. Question. Was that all the condition . Answer. Yes. sir. chat was all the condition that was made ietween us. I be. heve I said to Mr. CArL ELL that in this committee we were arranging I did not waut this man Legate. I did not want Legate to be allowed to come about the carms. On them conidltone I would go to work. Further on : Question. Was anything said in that eonversation about the use of money or nocessity of paying mol3 fo Votles I Aaswer. I wit just tellyo what Mr. CALDWELLn sdl to mo asbout it. lie alted me if I knew any members of the legisiatures that could be iniloeneed by the use of money for their votes. and I told him that I knew two ioibcirs. I beliered. tha6 lad die reptation of having oeel inflluenced in their votes on lormer occasions. tuestion. Did .yo t luention tlicir names I Aostver. Yes. air. Question. Who were they 7 Answer. Mr. toes wos one. Question Mr. Luce who sits ther Answr. Yes. sir. and the other manI cannot call his oname. Qection. Whuere was he frotI ncoswor. I cannot recollet. but I reocollect telling him there were two who tad. the reputation of having been inflacuced oil former occasions or it former occasion. Questien. What did Yle. jALDiWELL Say rI reply to that ? Aiiwor. he said if I fointl any members that wanted a little money for votes. to scud then. to him and to Lo. haith. Question. Was that all that was soid upon th subjectI AiiSWer. Mr. CALDELnL said there was another class of hilitoned gentlemen thfer in the legislature that would net sell their votes. but they put it in this way: that they had bcon to a pretty heavy expense in carrying their cectiou. and they nould cant their expenses psid. ani. if I met with atiy of that class. to Bond them to him or to Len. I simply read those as illustrations. I will now read a passage from the testimony of Mr. Carney. Mr. Carney gives the details of an interview botwveen Mr. Smith. Mr. CArDW17L. and himself. Io went to see Mr. CALDwcL at the request of Len. T. Smith: Yr askod me then to go ad see Mr. CALDWIer. Mr. Smith and myself wont to Mr. Caceslmcs rooMn. Me. Sith said to Mr. CA5.uIWELh that be hallu volved him to the amount of about t40.a. Question. Mr. Smith stated to tir. CALDWiLL that lie had involved himselt? Answer. ie said. I think. 1I have already iuvolved yeu to the amount of abous 640.0D0.". By Mr. HILL: Qestion. Involved Mr. CALnwLL I Answer. Yes. sir. invoved Mr CA iWErL e aad. says lie. Now e must not be ularied. you must expect to cpenid money in tlh beginiin of tits contest t that is to getastatos iefoire the Igislinrio Vrom ]lave got to leol the other Candidates in the preliminary vote. an if yen hve not ervs and Oraoe nIl tli to tio that you hai botter withdraw frti t e amvass. That had to betone." Its. CALDWELt wanted to know how uinti it would take. low urich he thiirelit it woild take to do it. anti tlr. Smith said lie did not know. I do not rememer that li stated it. He asked rue. Well. I said to him T thought lie mght do that fr the ourn he ex. pecteil to expend. or had proposed. or may be tsr a little less than that sum. which waa a quarter of a million of dollars. It turns out that before the arrangement was made between CALDWELLi and Carney for the $15.000. Mr. CALnWELL and Mr. Smith said to Mr. Carney. " We irtend to carry this matter if it costs us .$250.000."" and this was the remark referred to by Mr. Carney in this conversation. Mr. Sm ith rade the saie statement: "We intend to elect CALDWELlT if it costs us 6250.000." That seemed to ntartle h inod lie said hie woa not prepared to do anything of that sort. Mr. Smith ritlfied that was all nonsense. that It would take hat asniall som more. and if he diid not look it succeod. he sod If 0yo will let me go en and have my own winy. and I do not iake it succeed for you. I will payhl the expenses niloclt." Mr. CAODWictLrsii. Le.. iliitis ai. arid slapped bin( on the bn:s. "go ahead. anti I will stand tuy you. I think that oi anotlier oeo.son Mr. Soith asked ras to go with him again. and I went the secetd time. and what ope erod was similar. It seems from the testimony that Mr. CALDWELL became despondent several times. and thought the thing was costing him too much. and Mr. Smith had to strengthen Lim and stiffen hini upo. I will read an extract front the testimony of Mr. Anthony. mayor of Lecavenworth. He says: Question. Did yO ever have any conversation with tMr. CALI)wEL in regard to what that election hd cost him. or aniything on that sbject? A niwer. lie rerirked to ie. ineidcntally I think last summer. in regard to the cost if the clection. Qnestio. rhit (id ho say abrnt it t Antor. Ho said to me that it had tost him i about $60.000. Quetion. -Whor reas that statement made to yi 0. Ariswer. That stateieint waS mae to me Wlie Il was conversing with me about my purchasing the -Bulletin office. in Leavenworth. He testifies in regard to a conversation he had with him as to what. Payerss vote had cost him . that it lad cost him $3.000. Mr. Carney testifich: Question. Iow much liav you heard him say. if anything. tha it cost himl Answer. I have heard him oily ib cost him over 60.000. Question. When did tie tell you that I Answer. After tir elctioni. Question. Over 30.0uos0e Answer. I have heard him state that. And Mr. Carney testifies that in several conversations with Mr. CALDILy. lie (CAnDWLL) told him that. It seems that these notes given for the $15.000 were not paid at the time they were to be. Mr. CALDWELL excused hiutself to Mr. Carney. first. bocause the Kansas Paeilic Railroad Company had not complied with their contract. and because he had rnn shrt of ready money. and frequently told him that she election had cost hin over $60.000. and this although MiY. CALDWEILL had repudiated his contract with Mr. Cltrko for the $12.000. Mr. Burke. who was the editor of the Leavenworth Times. end supported Mr. CALDWiLI. during the canvass. and to whoua Mr. CALDWreL had loaned $6.000 with the understanding that a part of it was not to be paid back. ard suit for it was afterward brought and only part of it recovered. says in his testimony : I had two or three conversatioes with him at different times. but that was shout the gist of it all. 1e remarked. I believe. something about paying Mr. Carneys election expenses. amid I suggested that that was perhaps a pretty large item. o said it was. bl not more tni ten per ceot. of the whole amount. He had confessed to the $15.000 to Carney. and he said that that was not ten per cent. of what hud btee this cost of the electian. Ti Seiator frm Mississippi (Mr. AscoiaN] calls my attention to the testimony of Mr. Thoins. a man who I thiakimrsssd the coem-

S

Mr. MORTON

Unknown

MORTON

Unknown

M

03101873.txt

I move that the Senate do now adjourn. ThoPRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas has risen for some purpose.

None

Mr. ANTHONY

Unknown

ANTHONY

Unknown

M

03111873.txt

Certainly. I will give way to the Senator from Kansas.

None

Mr. ANTHONY

Unknown

ANTHONY

Unknown

M

03111873.txt

I simply desire to say that I have prepared a statement to make to the Senate on this question. but my voice is so much affected by a severe cold that I know it will be impossible for me to read it. I should like to send it to the Secretarys desk and have it read now. to follow the speech of the Senator fron Indiana.

None

Mr. CALDWELL

Unknown

CALDWELL

Unknown

M

03111873.txt

I hope my friend will give way to a motion to adjourn.

None

Mr. CARPENTER

Unknown

CARPENTER

Unknown

M

03111873.txt

0. no. the Senator from Kansas ought to be allowed to make his statement in answer to the Senator from Indiana. That is only fair to him.

None

Mr. EDMUNDS

Unknown

EDMUNDS

Unknown

M

03111873.txt

I desire to say. further. that there are many things that the Senator from Indiana has said in his argument that I can reply to and refute. I refrain from doing so now. but I shalt do so before this subject is disposed of.

None

Mr. CALDWELL

Unknown

CALDWELL

Unknown

M

03111873.txt

The Senator from Kansas sends to the desk a statement to be read.

S

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

03111873.txt

I think the Senator had better have it read be the morning.

S

Mr. STEWART

Unknown

STEWART

Unknown

M

03111873.txt

I should like it to go out to the country with the argumentu of the Senator from Indiana. I think it will bea pretty good antidote to his speech. Several executive messages were received from the President of the United States. by Mr. BancocK. his secretary.

S

Mr. CALDWELL

Unknown

CALDWELL

Unknown

M

03111873.txt

It seems to me that this reply of the Senator from Kansas can hardly be listened to with attention now when the Senate is fatigued. and as the day is pretty well spent. I would move that the matterbe postponed until tomorrow for the purpose of haying an executive session.

S

Mr. CAMERON

Unknown

CAMERON

Unknown

M

03111873.txt

The Senator from Pennsylvania moves that the farther consideration of the subject be postponed until tomorrow.

S

The VICE-PRESIDENT

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

03111873.txt

Now I move that the Senate proceed to the eonsideration of executive business.

S

Mr. CAMERON

Unknown

CAMERON

Unknown

M

03111873.txt

I ask leave to withdraw the papers in the case of Berry. MeFall & Judd. There was a favorable report in the case. and a bill. I believe. passed both Houses. bat thiled for waut of the signature of the lPresident. There has heen no adverse retport.

S

Mr. WRIGHT

Unknown

WRIGHT

Unknown

M

03111873.txt

Leave will be granted if there be no objection. On notion of Air. LOGAN. it was Ordered. That Dr. Yt. E. Walker have leave to withdraw her petition and papers from the tiles of the Senate. On motion of Mr. BUCKINGHAM. it was Ordered. Tiat E. W. Whitaker have leave to withdraw his petition and papers from ti files of the Senate oc filing copies of the came with the Secretary of the Senate.

S

The VICE-PRESIDENT

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

03111873.txt

I ask consent of the Senate to make a few remarks on a question of privilege.

S

Mr. CLAYTON

Unknown

CLAYTON

Unknown

M

03111873.txt

Leave will be granted if there be no objection.

S

The VICE-PRESIDENT

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

03111873.txt

It will be remembered that some thirteen or fourteen months ago a special committee of this body was raised. charged with the investigation of certain allegations against myself. set forth in the testilnot of two witnesses. Wheeler and Whipple. given before the Committee on Southern Outrages. It will also be remembered that at the expiration of the session preceding the last a partial report of that committee was made. but the testimony was not submitted with the report. A short tin before the close of the last session a fell report was sunbtmitted. with the testimony. which is now upon our tables. I did not deem it advisable at that time. so near the close of the session. and to the prejudice of public business. to ask the Senate to take up that report. I desire now to ask that the Senate. after the case of Mr. CALDWELL. which is now before the Senate. is disposed of. will take up. consider. and pass judgment upon the testimony and reports submitted by the committee in my case.

S

Mr. CLAYTON

Unknown

CLAYTON

Unknown

M

03111873.txt

Does the Senator make any motion?

S

The VICE-PRESIDENT

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

03111873.txt

No. sir.

S

Mr. CLAYTON

Unknown

CLAYTON

Unknown

M

03111873.txt

I ask leave to offer the following resolution: Resolved. That the charges made and referred to the select committee for investigation. affectie l the Oficial character and condact of Hon. IOWELL CLAYTON. are not sustaine. and that the committee be discharged from their further con. eideration. I shall not ask the consideration of this resolution now. but I give notice that I shalt call it up immediately after the resolution now before the Senate is disposed of.

S

Mr. WRIGHT

Unknown

WRIGHT

Unknown

M

03111873.txt

Mr. President. as the charges against Senator CLAYTON have been referred to. I wish to call the attention of tie Senate to one fact. The evidence as printed contains the report of the majority. and the views of myself as the minority. Probably Senators might not understand the arrangement unless their attention was called to it. I rise. therefore. for that purpose. The views of the minority have been placed at the back of the volume. commencing at page 378. There are what purport to be views of the minority in the beginning of the volume. That is an arratigement by the printer which I do not understand. I suppose it was a mistake of his without any direction from any one. but the views of the minority are in the back of th volume.

S

Mr. NORWOOD

Unknown

NORWOOD

Unknown

M

03111873.txt

Is there a motion pending ?

S

Mr. MORTON

Unknown

MORTON

Unknown

M

03111873.txt

There is not.

S

The VICE-PRESIDENT

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

03111873.txt

Will the Senator from Indiana give way to me for a moment ?

S

Mr. NORWOOD

Unknown

NORWOOD

Unknown

M

03111873.txt

Mr. President. Mr. John B. Gordon. Senatoreleet from Georgia. whose cerificate has been on our table for some days. is now present. and I ask that he be sworn in.

S

Mr. NORWOOD

Unknown

NORWOOD

Unknown

M

03111873.txt

The Senatorelect will present himself for the purpose of being qalified.

S

The VICE-PRESIDENT

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

03111873.txt

thereupon advanced to the VicePresidents desk. and the oaths prescribed by law having been administered to him. he took his seat in the Senate.

S

Mr. GORDON

Unknown

GORDON

Unknown

M

03111873.txt

I submit a Senate resolution. which I ask to have read and considered at this time.

S

Mr. IERRY. of Michigan

Unknown

IERRY

Michigan

M

03111873.txt

Mr. President. I ask the indnlgence of the Senate to occupy a few moments i a stating why I desire this resolution to pass. and to very briefly call attention to some of the considerations which have moved mc to take steps toward the attainment of a measure wholly in the interest of the public good. My purpose was to invite action upon this project. by the passage of a bill. of like features. at the late session of Congress. The extraordinary pressure of graver matters precluded the possibility of cousidoration. Notwithstanding the approval of both Military Committees of that Congress. following the concurrence of the Secretary of War. the rules of the Senate. rigorously enforced. barred what I had good reason to believe the ready passage of the bill. Since it could not be reached. and fell with other measures by the termination of Congress. I desire now to so far recur to it as to call public attention to the subject. that during the months of recess before is popular judgment and comment may find way to the next Congress. in approval or disapproval of what I am persuaded will verily subserve the general welfsrre. As thd bill expresses. its object is to seat apart. as a national parK. and dedicate to the public use. all of the public gronusd7 except the necessary surroundings of the fort. now held by the Goverment within the island of Mackinac. as a military reservation or otherwise. If in past years this island was considered as a point of such strategic importance as to warrant its withdrawal from public sale. it certainly cannot longer be regarded as so essential to the national safety as to be continued in th sense of an indispensable military reservation. Whatever of importance may have attached to salient points along our northern border. as coming within the scope of national guardianship and retention against the possible event of rupture with the British government. these fears may henceforth be regarded as groundless. War with England would be American occupation of her Canadian possessions. For military puposes. therefore. we no longer need to hold the island of Mackinac. This fact is practically recognized by the dilapidated condition of the fort. now left to crumble into decay by tire indifference shown by the Governmoiut to any expenditure looking to the preservation of the military works at that post. Were it otherwise. and the point deemed of any importance in respect to future military necessities. this design does in unowis conflict with any such use of the island which the military exigencies of the country might demand. It seeks not to divert from. but to keep it. as now. under the continued control of the War Department of the Government. In the possibilities of the future. the nuc to which it is proposed to dedicate tire island will iot ptijudieo or defeat the utilization of the spot as a base for military operations. Then. as now. the Govern met will have the santo access to and occupation of its area for all purposes of public emergency. There can be. therefore. no military objection to the purpose sought. To place this beyond doubt. during the late sessieu I formally invited the attention of the Secretary of War to the provisions of the measure. and asked his consideration and approval of the same. if deemed compatible with the piblie use and safety. Tise General of the Army was also conferred with upon the subject. Thu officer having military charge of the lakes was called upon to express any objections wlich might occur to hirer against the adoption of such a measure. Besides. as stated. the Military Committee of the last Senate fully considered the proposition. and now all these may be said to have given their unqualified approval of the measure. I have said this mach upon the military aspect of the case. more because of the fact of the reservation being a military one. and held as snch. and possibly considered by the public as of some strategic importance. When in the early years of our lake navigationthe conmerce of the lakes passed through the north channel. between Mackinac and Round Islands. the fort on Mackinac Island commanded this commerce. Of later yearsit has been found that the bettor one is what is now known as the south channel. through which the great part of the growing commerce of these lakes passes. and really Mackinac is too distant. from the course taken to be of any practical use in a military espionage of this branch of national pruits. It is a significant historial commentary of this. that Old Mackinac. on the maielaud of the lower peninsula of Michigan. was where the English first erected their fort. following in the wake of the Indiamr choice of the like spot as the commanding one of the straits. The island of Mackinac was not till 1780 selected as a locality of any importance. and then by the English as a place of security. by its isolation. from the surprises and incursions of warlike savages. The massacre of the English garrison at Old Mackinac by hostile Indians. io 1763. led to the selection of Mackinac Island as the more secluded aud consequently safer. rather than the most commanding location for the military defense of the straits. The island falling into our hands by the definitive treaty of peace of 1783. retaken by the British in 1812. and restored by the treaty of Ghent in 1814. has. by these successive transitions. historically grown into military fame. Thoobservant and instinctive Indian chose better whqn he sstablished his point dlappui ait Old Mackinac. where the straits are but four miles wide. and the narrowest point. rather than. asthe white man since has d on a n island seven miles distant from the course of commerce. It will hence be noticed that whatever may be the reasons for retaining possession of the island for Government uss. it cannot chiefly be considered as of much nilitary significance to the nation. Of traditioal and historical value it possesses much to endear it to the people. and as one of the earlier landmarks of national boundary and history. it will not easily pass out of annals or recollections. In the estimation of the natives. who .made it a point of interest bordering upon veneration. the islandwas not only of singularbeausty. but made sacred to them by legends and traditions front immemorial tribes and races. Its antiquity is worthy of note. As early as the Puritan landing it was trodden by whites. for the Freach occupied and roamed about it in 1620. At Ol Mackinac . Fro Marquette established his mission in 1671. and following his death this mission of peace was transformed into the seat of war. Thousands of Indian warriors hold their conuncils and dances. and planned their murderous forays a t these notable chief quarters. The confederate tribes gathered here to devise ways and icans to capture and destroy tribal foes. It was thegrand place of meeting and point of departure for trade and war. 1ero the scalps were brought and counted. the wampuns distributed. and the warrior decorated. So near this scene of warlike sway. where whoop and song made nightly orgies more terribly hideous. it was not strange that the superstitious Indian. beholding in tile distance an island of mich natural beaay and grotesqi crest. three hundred feet above the watery surface. naturally clothed its striking features witr tile supernatural. naming it "the island of giant fairies." To this day the Indian looks upon and treads the almost unbroken surface of -Mackinac with muCh of the veneration which inspired his early fathers when they first saw and consecrated to the Groat Spirit the favored island. It is. Mr. President. to hold intact. as far as practicable. this island. fast becoming tire favorite of the white man as well as Indian. that I seek by the measure proposed to guard against its natural curiosities and beauty being lessened or destroyed by the hands of wanton despoilers. We cannot too early or too surely arrest and preserve front decay relies of nationalistory or fiame. We owe it to ourselves and to the futrre to grasp and fix in sonte form to hand down to posterity. all points or incidents of historic value which serve to tiustrate the march of the uation. I would aclld this exarple i perpetuity of that worthy record. that this. with other national memorials. may not perish. but brighten with the lapse of time. In what better or surer way can this be done. in this instance. than by devoting the resrvatlion to the free usse and pleasur of the public. and by this very dedication to that oLject load each and every visitor and constitueut of the nation to take a personas interest and make it an idividual matter to protest against aiy form of vandalism calculated to lessen its value sid favor I By the act setting aptrt for the public tire distant. wilder. aud grander areas of the Yosemite and Yellowstone. the desire of the people is disclosed to do somethiug looking to the protection and perpetuation of places of natural curiosities as uatioual possessions for general enjoyment. With all of their plodding traits. the American people are developing in many ways the love for Lbh beautifuh. The practical is sharing somewhat with the mstleticah Vastness and grandeur will be sought in the parks of the Yosemite andYellowstone. at the cost of distance.and inconvenience. Mackinac lies in the path of the lakes. with proximity and ease to invite to its charis. Nine miles in ciroumferene. with an area of six theosaund acresm. about two thousand of which the Government owns. its altitudgre ater than other islands of the straits 3 ite famed suecessive etrifts for national possession in the memorials of the "Brit- ish lauding" and "Fort Holmes." whose imperishable moat records the fall of an American hero. its natural curiosities of "archreck." "sugarlout." snird rooks and caves of legendary incident. those interspersed wviths profusion of variegated perennial growth. contrasting with the hune of transparent waters ensbracing it . aunt to tis unique scenery add the surrounding spectacle of waters dotted with islands and flocked with sail and steam. the horizon frequently decked with miragbreath of antagonizing vapiorsand we find the source of attraction which is fast making this island the most noteworthy of the group which adorns the uniting waters of Lakes Superior. Michigan. and Huron. Already hundreds dlock there during the heated season for escape from warmer latitudes. Pl iged iu cool waters. the island is fanned by a temperatunre whose invigorating eifcot is the avowed experience of all sojourners. Farous for the product of its waters. it is also celebrated for the salubrity (if its climate. Situate about three hundred and fifty niles from Chicago. and say three hundred from )etroit. it has heretofore been reached only by lake navigation. Steamers daily touch there from either way. Many have no objections to traversing the water. others dislikh to venturo upon its restless surface. and this unavoidable means of approach has. to a great oxtent. dissuaded largo numbers from sokirg its pleasures and benefits. Two lines of railroad will soon be conpluted. terminating at Old Mackinac. A company has organized to construct rt road connecting with the Northern Pacific. and. reeting opposite this terminus. to form a transcontisoutal roace to the Facifi. MARCHl 11. broken only by the four miles passage of thu straits. Within sight of the moring masses upon thi future national thoroughfare. and in full view of the commerce of the chain of lakes. it needs no prophetic eye to forecast the prominence in store for such an easily reached and charmingly situated summer retreat. The legislature of Michigan. the State I have the honor in part to represent. within the jurisdictional limits of which the island lies. alive to the value of this place of resort to the people of the nation. has recently passed a concurrent resolution. already presented to and ordered printed by the Senate. which earnestly commends the project. Thepublic press. reflecting various sections. join in its coinnendation. Congress already has passed two actsone of donation. the other of saleconveying title to a portion of the reservation. Others are applying for like acts for purchase. Gradually. in this manner. the tract will be dissipated and the nation thus dispossessed of the whole reservation unless. by some general measure like the proposed one. it is finally and effectually vested in the public. Imay add that the plan makes provision for the fullest freedom. right. and enjoyment to all. of this romantic island. Reserved by the executive order in 1827 for public use. let it. by the legislative branch. in 1873. be perpetuated to a broader and more useuli national service. that the people may for this now boon find fresh cause for pride in and devotion to a Government that blesses while it protects and provides. Mr. President. I have deemed it in place to say at least this much in behalf of Michigan. whose citizens. spealcing for themselves and for the people of the whole laud. thus invoke Federal aid to make free and sacred to the nation an historic spot for the public good. I hope. therefore. there will be no objection to the adoption of this preliminary resolution.

S

Mr. FERRY. of Michigan

Unknown

FERRY

Michigan

M

03111873.txt

Mr. President. it seems to me that this is a very inauspicious time for us to enter upon such a project as this. It ought to be considered at greater length. and requires more tiume than we shall be able to devote to the consideration of the subject now. It involves the principle whether we shall now dedicate throughont the States of this Union certain portions of the public land for public parks and thus become involved in the expenditure of money hereafter. I prefer that this matter should go over.

S

Mr. SAULSBURY

Unknown

SAULSBURY

Unknown

M

03111873.txt

I was unable to hear all that the Senator said. but supposing that he intended to make an objection to this resolution. I will state to him that this resolution merely directs the Secretary of War to report to the next session of Congress whether in his judgment it is compatible with the public service to make such a dedication of this island.

S

Mr. FERRY. of Michigan

Unknown

FERRY

Michigan

M

03111873.txt

I understand that the resolution is nominally a resolution of inquiry. but it is a iovement looking to legislation for the dedication of public parks throughont the different States of this Union. Therefore. at this early stlu of the movenient. I give notice thet. for one. I am opposed to all these projects. and oppose this one now in its iieeption even as a matter of inquiry. I do not think we ought to enter upon such a iaeasureoat this time.

S

Mr. SAULSBURY

Unknown

SAULSBURY

Unknown

M

03111873.txt

I shold not have offered the resolution at this session had not the Senate already sot the precedent by th adoption of similar resolutions of inquiry. one on Thursday last. and another yesterday. submitted by the Sonator from Indiana. [Mr. MORTON. I and I have taken care to keep within the rule fixed by past usage. The resolution which I have offered is. I think. in Order. as other resolutions of like import have been so ruled by the VicePresident. The Chair. therefore. having ruled it in order. I have supposed that I was but doing my duty. and exercising my right. in expressing my views on the subject. While I am ou the floor I desire to say that I have seen but one adverse comment upon this project. and as there was an insinuation in that criticism from a paper in this city. I deemed it my pleasure to recur to the subject in the Senate and invite public scrutiny and comucnt upon the project during the months of recess before us. so that whei weassemblehere again atthe noxtsession we may befully advised of any popular objection that may arise throughout the laud to the proposed dedication of this island. and ifthere shall then appear any valid oljoetion I shall be one of the first to oppose the proposition. My judgment now is that there cannot be anypossible objection to it. since it is to servo the uses of the public. All will be left free to go to it. I am opposed to its passing into private hands. so that by fees the public will be mulct while enjoying places of public interest. It is for that reasonto invite public atteition and judgment upon the subjectthat I have sought the floor this morning to present. in this brief manner. iyviews. and to show something of the valu to the people which such a place may bcome by the public dedication I have suggested. 1 hope the resolution will pass.

S

Mr. FERtY. of Michigan

Unknown

FERTY

Michigan

M

03111873.txt

I should like to hear the resolution read.

S

Mr. CASSERLY

Unknown

CASSERLY

Unknown

M

03111873.txt

CcRux. The resolution is-

S

The CnIEF

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

03111873.txt

I understand it is very long. and if the Senator from Michigan will state the substance of it. that will answer my purpose.

S

Mr. CASSERLY

Unknown

CASSERLY

Unknown

M

03111873.txt

The reservation is now under the controlof the Secretary of War. There is a very small portion of the island. a few acres. nnder the General LandOffiee. I have asked that the whole of it be placed. as the most of it now is. under the control of the Secretary of War. The resolution proposes to leave it to his discretion and coatrol. as it is now. The object of the resolution. or the bill that it presupposes. is to impose on the Secretary of War the duty of looking after and seeiig that the places of interest. and the shrubbery tha adds to the beiiy of the island. shall nor be destroyed by wanton rovers upon it. This is the sum and substance of the whole measure. It does not divert it from any branch of the Government. but leaves it where it now is. and simply directs the Secretary of War to give additional attention to it. I will state that we already have a post there . we have a garrison. and keep a company of soldiers. and the Government has thus oversight of the islanud now. This resolution. as I said before. only directa the Secretary of War to pay a little special attention to it. and prevent it from utilation. In my opinion. any Senator or any one who will visit that island. and see its locality and enjoy its beauty* will be one of the foremost to join me in the object I have in view.

S

Mr. FERRY. of Michigan

Unknown

FERRY

Michigan

M

03111873.txt

Ait. President. I shonld not have said a word but for the intimation of my good friend. the Senator from Delaware. of his opposition to this and similar resolutions. I desire to say that in the case where military reservations of the United States adjoin cities and towns. my opinion is that the best use to which they can be put is to apply them to public uses as parks or public grounds. under. of course. reasonable restrictionsas to the amount. tenure. and the use to be made of them and the improvements to be put upon them. From what the Senator from Michigan baas stared of his resolution. it seems to me entirely nnobjeetionablo.

S

Mr. CASSERLY

Unknown

CASSERLY

Unknown

M

03111873.txt

This is a most extraordinary proposition. it seems to me. Does the Senator from Michigan mean that a resolution passed by the Senate of the United States shall take from the control of the Government any of its public domain and put it under the care of the Secretary of War 7

S

Mr. HAMILTON. of Texas

Unknown

HAMILTON

Texas

M

03111873.txt

Will the Senator allow me to answer him just there ?

S

Mr. FERRY. of Michigan

Unknown

FERRY

Michigan

M

03111873.txt

The resolution does not propose anything conclusively. It simply invites the attention of the Secretary of War to the compatibility with the public interest of the project. and asks him to report to us at the next session of Congress- I will state to the Senator that it embodies substantially a bill which I introduced to the Senate and had referred to the Committee on Military Affairs at the last session. The chairman of that committee is now present. and if there be any objection from that committee to the project. I should like the Senator from Illinois to sate it. The measure was reported back approved from that committee. If]I were at liberty to speak of the action of the House of Ropreseunttives I niight say that the Military Committee of that House has approved the measure. but I am foreclosed by the rules of the 8eiiate from stating that as a fact. but I will draw it as a direct inference. and I think I amn justified in making the inference.

S

Mr. FERRY. of Michigan

Unknown

FERRY

Michigan

M

03111873.txt

I think the matter had better go over. at any rate until the resolution is priuted and we can see what it is. Clearly. if I nuderstood it as it was read at the desk. it means that no person shall be permitted to trespass upon this property. to eat timber. or to settle upon it. or do anything of the sort until the War Department determine what to do with it. It is legislation to all intents and purposes. and if the Senator proposes it for adoption this morning he must expect to have it discussed. Nobody. I suppose. is prepared properly to discuss it now. It is a very strange proposition anyhow. that where there is a world of vacant territory. and we are moving heaven and earth to get emigrants from Europe to fill it up. we should be asked to set apart national parks every day of time week. It does not seem to me that the proposition has any foundation in taste or necessity.

S

Mr. HAMILTON. of Texas

Unknown

HAMILTON

Texas

M

03111873.txt

If I supposed there was anything in it detrimental to the public interest. I would yield at once. but I will state to the Senator that there is no timber upon that island that is worth anything as timber. There is a small growth of evergreens that I am. by this propositlon. (which I an inviting the Secretary of War to approve or disapprove.) endeavoring to protect as objects of beauty connected with tho natural features of the island. There is no timber of any value upon it. The Government has held it as a military reservation for years. as I stated. it was reserved in 1827 by an executive order. It now lies in the control of the military branch of the Government. and can be utilized for war purposes if necessary. This does not divert it from that. Nobody wants to go on there to take timber for its use. but men going there. ax in hand. without any particular interest. will slash and destroy its beauty. On account of that. and having observed it by a. visit there the past season. I was determined in some manner to arrest it. This movement is for the interest of the Senators constituents as well as my own. It does seem to me that there can be no public objection to the dedication of this island to national purposes.

S

Mr. FERRY. of Michigan

Unknown

FERRY

Michigan

M

03111873.txt

I ask that the resolution go over for the present.

S

Mr. HAMILTON. of Texas

Unknown

HAMILTON

Texas

M

03111873.txt

The Senator from Texas asks that the further consideration of the resolution be postponed until tomorrow. and that it be printed.

S

The VICE-PRESIDENT

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

03111873.txt

Does not an objection carry it over one day?

S

Mr. HAMILTON. of Texas

Unknown

HAMILTON

Texas

M

03111873.txt

The resolution was.received without objection. The Senator from Michiganasked to have it considered. and it was considered. It is fairly before the Senate.

S

The VICE-PRESIDENT

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

03111873.txt

If the Chair will allow me. I will state to the Senator that this is only a resolution of inquiry. It concludes no legislative ntion. It. is merely asking the opinion of the Secretary of War to be submitted next winter. when the Senate shall met. Certainly the Senator will have an opportunity then to be heard. and Isay to him now in advance that I will not press the subject iu advance of his being present. or at any time except when he is in his seat. This being a mere matter of inquiry. certainly it would seem that the objection should not be persevered in.

S

Mr. FERRY. of Michigan

Unknown

FERRY

Michigan

M

03111873.txt

What is the objection? There are thousands of historic spots just as sacred as the island of Mackinac which the people of the respective localities would like to have improved at the national expense. so as to enhance the value of surronding property. I can pick out swamps in Louisiana that are memorable in the history of that country. and it would not cost more than six or seven million dollars to filt them up and make magnifleent parks of them. The island of Blennerhassett. and various other objects of interest to the people of the United States. might be indicated. The Senator from Michigan has made a pathetic appeal for the island of Mackinac. but if it carries conviction to the mind of any one for any purposo in the world. it should be to restore it back to the natives oF the country. for they seem to deplore tqio fact that they have been robbed of that opot. I do not know aything about its surface. but possibly it would makea good reservation for Indians. If so. it had better be devoted to that psurpose. or any other purpose than a national park. which would be but a sinkhole to waste money in.

S

Mr. HAMILTON. of Texas

Unknown

HAMILTON

Texas

M

03111873.txt

This being a resolution of inquiry simply. I ask for a vote on the resolution.

S

Mr. FERRY. of Michigan

Unknown

FERRY

Michigan

M

03111873.txt

I ask for the yeas and nays on it.

S

Mr. HAMILTON. of Texas

Unknown

HAMILTON

Texas

M

03111873.txt

I wish to state that this island is simply a watdringplaeo. It is an old French tradingpost. and an old Indian post. It is a reck out in the lake a few miles. with. as my colleague Bays. very little vegetation. but it is a roantie spot. visited by people from all parts of the United States. This is simply to reserve it.

S

Mr. CHANDLER

Unknown

CHANDLER

Unknown

M

03111873.txt

I did not hear the resolution reaml. and the first impressioa was different from what it is. A bill for the purpose of the resolution. asking that this island be set aparb for a park. was referred to the Miltary Committee at the last session. My recollection is that it was reported back to the Senate favorably. but not acted on by the Senate.

S

Mr. LOGAN

Unknown

LOGAN

Unknown

M

03111873.txt

It could not be reached.

S

Mr. FERRY. of Michigan

Unknown

FERRY

Michigan

M

03111873.txt

Ibelievethatwasthere.son. it could notbe reached. This is a mere resolution of inquiry. calling for a report from the Secretary of War. I did not understand the resolution as first road. but I understand now that that is it. and I see no objection to that.

S

Mr. LOGAN

Unknown

LOGAN

Unknown

M

03111873.txt

The question is on the adoption of the resolution. The question being taken by yeas and nays. resultedyeas 37. nays 13. as follows: YEASMessrs. Allison. Ames. Anthony. Bogy. Boreman. Buckingham. Caldwell. Carpenter. Cascrty. Chandler Ciayten. hoking. hono. Cragin. Hersy. Ferry at Michigan. Fltrgso. Hiteheock. Tngalls. Jones. Logan. Morrimon. Mitchell. Merrill of Maine. Merril of Vermont. Morton. Norwood. Oglesby. Pratt. Ramsey. Rtanomi. Sherman. Sprague. Stewart. Tiptan. Wedleigh. end .Vright--7. NAYSMcsr. Aicors. Cameron. Fenton. Ferry of Connectieut. Gilbert. 1am. liton of Maryland. Hamilton of Texas. Kelly. Medreery. Sargent. Saulsbury. bchrz. cud Stevenson13. ABSENTMesses. Bayard. Brownlow. Cosper. Davis. Dennis. Edmunde. Froltnghuyscu. Gdthwoite. Gordon. Hamlin. Howe. Johnston. Lewis. Patterson. Iob. orison. Scott. Spencer. Steckton. Sumner. larnuian. Wot. and Wiademti. So the resolution was agreed to.

S

The VICE-PRESIDENT

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

03111873.txt

I offer a resolution of inquiry. and ask for its present consideration : Rlselred. Than the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby directed to inform the Senate. at its cext cession. how many superfeisi feet of sler space are allotted to each steerage iniaigrant on board ship. according to the oficit reports ot the colt lectors of castone . also to case the atnosphere of some of th steerage cemnpartmnet to ie chericaily anmiyzed by a competent expert. with a view of ascertaining its healthflnesa and ale.. to have an examination made of the general treatacnb of immigrants on board ship. and to suggest each alterations in existing laws as may he necessary to secure effectual protection to steerage immigrants. The resolution was considered by unanimous consent and agreed to.

S

Mr. CHANDLER

Unknown

CHANDLER

Unknown

M

03111873.txt

The Senate yesterday. on motion ofthe Senator from Pcnisylvanin. postponed theconsideration of the resolution in regard to Mr. CADWELL untiltoday. That will makeit necessary that it be taken up by motion. I theretore move that the Senate do now proceed to the consideration of that resolution.

S

Mr.MORTON

Unknown

MORTON

Unknown

M

03111873.txt

A majority of the Committee on Privileges and Elections. in a report made to the Senate on the 17th of February. 1873. reeom unded the adoption of the following resolution: Resotved. That ALXADEait CALDWELL was not duly and legally elected to a seat in the Senate of the United States by the legislature o the State of Kansas. The recommendation seems to be based open a summing up of the facts in tho following words. But tating the testimony altogrilier. the coaaittcecanno dui that moneywas paid to sas. menilbers of rime legislaturo for lhcir votes. nld money ptoiiiiscd to ethers. whicl was net paid. and ollbred to others who did not accept it. As this proceeding is essentially a judicial one. it cannot be considered a serious misapplication of terms tn say that here is a verdict of conviction against me. and an application to the Senate fern judgment thereon. Waiving for the present all question of the propriety of the verdict with referenda to the testimony. the inquiry is naturally suggested. will the finding warrant such judgment V That it will not I shall endeavor to maintain upon principle and authority . and in pursuance of such purpose I beg to call the attention of the Senate to the following clause of the Constitution : he Senats of ths United States shall be composed of two Sonta- from each State. chosen by the legislature thereof for six yearsl and each Sunater shall have one .ote. This clause has been several times adjudicated upon by the Senate. and the settled doctrine nowis that the Senators represent the State. the organized communnity. the bodypolitic. and not ehe individual citizens. as do the members of the House of Representatives. The latter are designated by the citizens acting in their individual capacities. the former are chosen by the State as a political sovereignty. acting through the designated instrumentality. generally the legislature. but sometimes the executive. In either case it is the State. the bodypolitic. that chooses the Senators. It is not profitable to inquire why the legislature. or. in certain eontingencies. the exe lativ. . was dcsignated as the instrumcntality through which the will of the bodypolitic should be expressed. the theory is that it is the act of the State. The decree or judgment of a court is not in legal contemplation the individual action of the judges who may happen to be upon the bench. but the alct of the court of which they are jndges. In considering the election of a Senator it is competent to inquire. what is the legislature? And the inquiry is satisfied when it is aseertalced what constitutes the lawmaking power in the State. Or. if the inquiry arose upon an appointment to fill a vacancy. the question would be. if the credentials wore regalar upon their face. whether the person who made the appointment was the individual exercising executive functions in the State. These inquiries being determined in the affirmative. they become. and are to be taken and held to be the acts of the State. It is the State that appoints the Senator. acting through the instrnmentality designated by the Constitution. I do not understand that this position is controverted by the coinmittee. but I judge from the report and the recommendation that the right to go behind my com ission is claimed. And for what purpose ? To determine whether the body that chose me was the legislature. within the meaning of the Constitution f No. that is not denied. To ascertain whether the choice was made at the right time and place. and in the prescribed manner? No. all this is admitted. To find whether a sufficient umnber voted for me I No . there is no controversy that I received twentyfive votes more than were necessary to a choice. What. then. is the claim? Why. nothing less than that the motive of each of the eightyseve members who voted for nie way be inquired into. There is no pretense that my credentials do not speak the truth. as evidenced by the journals of the logislatare. or that the record was taimpered with. It is an absolute fit that a large majority of the logilaturo did vote for me. and there is no evidence anywhere that any member voted under any kind of restraint. but because a majority of the committee say they have no doubt money was paid to sme one of the eightyseven. without in any way indicating the particular sie. the Senute is asked to say that the certificate of the governor is false. the record of the proceeding in the logislature does not speak the truth. amd. instead of eightyseven meibers voting for me. that no one of them did so. If the election of Senators by the legislature is the act of the State. wherein does it difler in legal intendment from the legislative acts of the same body? They are the acts of the State. the bodypolitic. performed by the instrument designated by the fundamental law of the State for that purpose. l]he State constitution creates the instrumnentality through which the laws are inade by the State. and the Conetitution of the United States adopts the same instrument fur the choice of Senators by the State. It will be admitted on all hatds that the act of the legislature in either case is the act of the State. The law has been long well settled and has become the doctrine of the elementary books. that in deteinining the validity of a legislative act of the State. the motives of the members of the legislature cannot be inquired into. Upon what principle is it. then. that an act of the State of a different character. accomplished through the same agency. can be questioned on that ground i In a controversy before one of the judicial tribunals of the country. if it should be sought to enforce a right created by the statute of a State and depending upon such statute. and a question should be made as to the validity of tle statute upon the alleged ground that a portion of the legislature which enacted it. including the person seeking to enenforce its provisions. had been induced to vote for it by brbery. is there any court in the country. enlightened or otherwise. that would entertain such inquiry I Would it not be said. and properly. too. that when what purpotted to be an act of the legislature. duly authenticated as prescribed by law. should be presented. the court must take it as the law? If. however. the authentication should be attacked. the court might properly refer to the journals of the legislative bodies for the purpose of ascertalinig whether the act had been passed in the forms of the constitution. nod. if found to have been so passed. would declare it to be the law aud govern itself thereby accordingly. It would not be contended by anyiscreon that the court could go further back i that it could inquirle into the reasons. motives. or indneements operating upon the usinds of thu metibers when these votes weae cast. Public conveienco. public policy. required the rule ]ong since established. and observed without variane down to this day. that the judicial tribunals of the country ought not to go further. anti the history of jurisprudence shows that they have not doe so. Tho reason of this rule is so obvious as to commend the rule itself to the iproval of all. and need not here be discussed. Nor can anybody. lawyer er no lawyer. distinguish between this case and the choice of a Sesator. if each is. as everybody udmits. the ace of the State in its sovereign capacity. I atn well aware that fhe Senate of the United States. in adjudicating upon the election of a Senator. is not boend lsy the coustitutionil interpretations of the judicial tribunals. but has the right to determine for itself what the law is. but where a good reason is given by the judicial tribunai for the rule it shall adopt it determining what is an act of the State and how far its autheuticity or genuineness may be inquired into. it would be proper for the Senate to adopt and enforce the same rule. Tie soundness of the rule I have been considering does not rest upon reason alone. but Upot adijidications of the highest tribunals to which such qucstions can be submitted. In the wellknown case of Fletcher vs. Peek. (6 Crunch. 87.) the Supromo Court of the United States denies the power of judieial tribnals to inquire into the motives of members of the legislature. even upon a suggestion of bribery. Ii the ease of Virginia vs. West Virginia. a very earnest efflort was made Isy the State of Virginia to induce the courts to go behind the acts of the State of Virginia anud of the United States. and to inquire into the validity or invalidity of the vote of certain counties. in consequence of which they were to be deemed to be annexed to the State of West Virginia. Bus the Supreme Court hold that time actb of the governor. representing the State of Virginia. was p iaafacU valid and mot impeacehable for fraud. especially in the absence of specific allegations and proofs to show the want of a major vote for the transfer of the counties in question from Virginia to West Virginia. (Wallaces Reports. vol. xi. p. 39.) This decision illustrates the objection which exists to going behind the fact of admilted majority of vote of the legislature of Kansas. The case of Elisha I. Potter agaitst Asher Robbins was considered aid decided in the Senate of the United States at a time when there vere giants in the laud. atd the report of the committee was snpported by the concurrence of such men as Calhoun. Clay. Clayton. Ewing. Frolinghaysen. Leigh. Maugum. Poindexter. Preston. Southasd. Surtgn. aidWebster. Thu case was this: On the 19th of January. 1833. Mr. Robbins was elected a Senator fur the State of Rhode Island for the term of six ars. i duo furin. by the general assembly of the State. In tchoer. 833s. the general assembly undertook to declare the election of Mr. Robbins void. and elected in his place Mr. Potter. The debates and documents in the case occupy more than a bunired pages of Clarks ContestedElection Cases. (pages 8771009.) fromn which it will suifllee to cite pertinent passages covering the precise qsestion before the Senate. The majority of tie committee in that cse (Msessrs. Poindexter. Frelinghuysen. and Sprague.) say: They (the Senators) are chosen hy the States as political soeoreigties. * * In the perfortsmnce of this ditty tho State sets it its highest sovereign capacity. cud the caucus whicl would rolder the eleionim of a Seuator void must be such as would destroy the validity of all laws enacted by the hotly y which the Senator was chosen. Other causes might exist to rendei- the election voidabl. end these are enmerated i tLo Constitution. beyond which the Senato cannot interpose its authority to disturb or control the sovereign powers of the States. vested in their legislatures by the Contitition f the Unitd States. Wo Tgt inquire. was tise person thirtyveats of age at the time of election ? ITad 1Ie ben nine years a citizet of thss United Slates I Was the olection held at the tius and place directed by the laws of elo Stats ? These are facts capable of clear demonstration my proot. and in the absence of the requisite qualifications in fither of th specified eass. or if the existil miws of the State rCgulating hs time and place for holding tlte election were violated. the Senate. acting ntner the power to judge of "the elections. returns. and qualitications of its own mombeas." might adisuge the commission of the person elected void. although mi all other respects it was legal asd eonstitutional. But whre the sovereign will of tho State is made known through its Irgisltoure. isnut consanlsnated by itspIropor oefial faetionaries in dn form. it wosll be a sdangeross exertien of power to look behind the commission for defects in the component parts of he legislature. or into the pcoliar organization of the body. f reeasons to justify the Senate iu leclaring its acts vsid. Such a power weld sabiect thr entir seope of State legislation to be osrruled by our deisieon. aud even the right of suffrage of individuel membiers of the legslatro wise slections were contes el snight be set aside. It would also lead into the investigatiess leto the motives of mubers in casting their votes. for the purpose ef establishing a ehnrgo of bribery or corruption in particular oases. hse matters your committee tlink prierly. tbelong to the tribunals of the Siate. ani cannot constitiute thi basis en which tle Senate could. withon an infringement of State sovereignty. claito the right to declere the election ofea Siuter void who possessed the requisite qualifications mud was chosen according to the forms of law end the Constitution. The committee further says: It is admitted thttho sitting member. Aeher Robilns. possesses all the qualiftcations required by the Constitution of the United States to be a Senator in Congress. asid that his commission as such is in due form according to ths laws and usages of Rhode Island. These points beingconceded. the rem seining end the only question to be decided is. was the body by which hs was rhosn a Setiator the legs. Lature of Risode Island? The minority of that cominittee. Messrs. IV. C. Rives and Silas Wright. agreed with the majority upon this point. and Mr. Wrighet states the psoposition as follows : The ltersigiel has always supposed that a memser if a legislative body who should accept a bribe was punishable for the crime. but he has nover underntood. nor does lie tow understand. that the vote of the nmimnlr given tnder the corrupt influence vitiated the proceeding voted upon. or rendered either void or voidable. by legal adjudication such proceeding. The member bried is still constitutionally and legaily t inelbor of the body. nobwi/hstalulin his errnptiont. and retains all his rights and all his powers as a member mtei conviction for the crime eusts til fru his seat. These authorities. it scems to me. ought to be considered as conciusire against the action recommended by the conmitteo. but if they shall not be so considered. and the Senate undertakes to go back of the certificate of the executive and the journals of the legislaftre for grounds ipon which to sustain the reeomnendation of the committee. questions quito as serious will arise The Constitution provides that the Senate shall be the sole judge of the elections. returns. and qualifieations of its own members. It will be admitted that in judging of the "returnss and qualifications" of the members. the body must be governed by the written law upon those subjects. lit it may be claimed. perhaps. that in judging of "their elections" the Senate is not bound by any written law. that it may make the law ex post faeto and proceed to enforce it. and this for the purpose of protecting itself against unworthy memisbers. Suet a claim cannot be admitted. What was the object of the clause of the Constitution in questionI No branch of the Government. nor any department or subdivision thereof. can lawfully exercise other than delegated powers. The jedicial power is vested it the courts createdi and provided for by the Constitution. Judging of elections generallyor of their equivalents. appointmentsis an exercise of judicial powers. and included in the grant. The elections of menbers of the English Parliament are now subject to investigation by the courts. The framers of our Constitution thought best to confer the power to judge of the elections of its own members on each House. and adlopted the clause in question to take the subject out of the general grant to the judiciary . it other words. to specifically deloga e to the Senate and IHouse of Representatives so much of the judicial power of the nation as is necesbnry to enable each House to judge of the elections of its own meinhers. No one will contend that if this power had been loft to the judicial tribunals of the country (and it would have been but for this clause) they could rightftlly have judged of those elections. except according to the known law. How. then. can is be said that at mere change or tribunal changced the law to be administered ? If this be the correct view of the subject the question will arise. what is the law in the promises I The committee in effect bay it is the will of the majority. no matter how capriciously exerted. And indeed. under existing circumstances. this is the only tenable position that can be assumed. for it is not pretended that there is any written. law upon the subject. This is not a question of privilege resting ill the sound discretion of the Seisete. nor is it claimed to be by the comjuittee. It is net whether I shall be punished f)r " disorderly behavior." either before or after my election . but whether there was any election at all. Proceeding uder the clause of the Constitution that authorizes the epulsion of a mneser. I ant ready to admit that the Senate would be allowed a very wide discretion in determining what should be a ldged "disorderly behavior." inasmuch as it would be impracticable to catalogue all the possible derelictions that would come within the meaning of the terms used. This. however. is not i proceeding under that clause. but under an entirely different one. It deciding spen the proposition embodied in ehc recommendation of the cotmnitto. I insist that the Senate must be governed by the law as it stood at the timie of the election . and the only question is. what was he law? If the matter were pending before a judicial tribunal upon the finding of the committee. considered as the verdict of a jury or a report of a referee. what should be the judgmentI The only applicable statute is the act of Congress fixing the time and prescribiog the manner of the eleti on of Senators. Thoplaceis designated alone by the fact that the legislature shall neet atnd hold its sessions at the capital of the State. Neither the ant of Congress nor any law of Kftnsas provides that a vote induced by bribery shall be treated as void. nor is it a principle of the common law that it shall be so considered. Upon what assulnption. then. can such a claim be founded ? It must be remembered the question is not what constitutes bribery. but what is the effect of it I It may be claimed that the law of the English House of Commons is the law of the Senate. This I deny emphatically. But if so. how did it become such ? It is not made so by the Constitution or any act of Congress. or any other authority that I am aware of. The Parliament is said to be omnipotent. as is also the House of Commons in its sphere. The Senate can lawfully exercise delegated powers alone. It maty judge of the elections of its members. determioe the rules of its proceedings. and punish for disorderly behavior. but it may not lawfully import and then enforce British law. Where. then. does it get this power to declare the consequence of bribery in the elections of its members? It may punish a member for bribery during his membership by expulsion. because of constitutional authority. but there is no authorization for declaring the vote of a member of a State legislature void. Is it because it is a legislative body that it is to be considered endowed with all the powers of the House of Commons in regard to its members 7 If so. wlsereo thec steed of express provisions to enable it to judge of elections. and inflict punishments? These are undoubted powers of the House of Commons. English statute law provides that "bribery by a candidato. though in one instance only. and though a majority of unbribed votes reain in his favor. will avoid the particular election and disqualify him for being reelected to fill such vacancy." (Sheperds Law of Elections. page 102.) But no case can be found in any of the books where all election was declared void on the ground of bribery. where there was no statute authorizing such action. That power was not claimed by the House of Commons. The books make indistinct allusion to two cases. these of Longe and Hallo. where members were expelled for that reason. but the cases are not well authenticated . and if they were they would not be in point. because that would have been done as punishment and not as affecting the election. There is. then. no source for the power claimed by the committee unless it be derived from the British statute. Such claim certainly cannot be admitted. Conceding to the Senate. in this behalf. all the inherent powers claimed by the House of Commons. and still it would not ha va the power. it niust be conferred by express law. and there is no pretense that it has been done hero. I cannot think the Senate is prepared to say a foreign statuote is the law of the United States. But it may be asked. is not the Senate authorized to protect itself against the presence of uworthy persons? I answer no. if they have the constitutional qualifications and are elected in the forms prescribed bylaw. unless by law authorized so to do. It may be ilaired how that can be done. Why. if at all. by the enactment of a law by Congress which shall declare the effect of bribed votes upon the particular election. as li been done by the British Parliament. Should these objections to the adoption of the resolution offered by the committee be considered insufficient by the Senate. then I object to the tinding as being unsupported by the testimony. That those Senators who may not have heard the testimony may have a proper appreciation of the situation. I beg to call their attention to son considerations arising out of the whole case. and seuggested by the testimony. that the comnittee seem to have overlooked or to have considered unworthy of notice. Before the investigation comrmenced I had been advised. authentically. as I supposed. that whatever testimony should .bo offered against tile nmust be adduced subject to the known legal rules of evidense in judicial exaniuations . that hearsay would cotbe admitted. that the charges exhibited against me being. under thlaws of the State where tie derelictions are cihrged to have occurred. criminal offenses. the proceeding iust be considered and treated as aqaosieriniinll investigaWion. and. i justice and right. conducted aceecrding to the kuown uid log- establisledrnlesgoverairegs uch examinations. Iliad a right to suppose that nothing would be admitted asevidence without beiig subjced to the teats applied in th cdscs snpposed. Howgrievously I have been disappointed in this behalf. will appear hereafter. Soon after the investigation was commenced. discovering that the rule I had been led to believe had been adopted was disregarded. I sought to have it enforced . bat. relying upon assurances of some ameiers of the committee. that hearsay statonmnts would not be regarded as proofs in usaking up a report. I forbore making objectunis as occasion arose. supposing I was not to be prejudiced thereby. I regret to say that my just expectations in this behalf have not been realized. some of the most serious charges in the report being founded upon such statements alone. I hope the Senate will be more just. and adopt a different course. I had been led to believe that the investigation to which I have been subjected was in the nature of a judicial proceeding. and that it was the duty of the comnititce to fairly consider all the testimony. giving that in my favor all the weight to which it was entitled. arid not undue weight to that against me. but I anc constrained to say that a comparison of the report with the testimony must convince any fairminded man that such was not the course pursued by the majority of the committee. Meat of the charges against me are founded upon the testimony of Thomas Carney. Sidney Clarke. William Spriggs. and D. R. Anthony. and every circumstance diselesed by the record tending to strengthen it is mentioned in the report. and every circumstance having an opposite tendency is suppressed. That this is not an unwarranted accasation will be abundantly manifest by even a hasty examination. It is said that Mir. Carney had been a governor of Kansas. That is admitted. It is also said that he had been once elected a Senator of the United States by the legislature of that State. but I deny that he ever was. -in any proper tense. so elected. The public history of the country. of which the committee had a right to take notice. shows that. while the late General Lane was a member of this body. and Air. Carney governor of Kansas. the latter induced a majority of the legislature. some time after it convened. to believe they had a right. one year prior to the proper time. to elect a Senator to succeed General Lane. and theydid attempt to do so. There was no other candidate before the legislature. cud the votes east were all for Mr. Caruey. but such an outcry was made by the people of the State that he never attempted to. take a seat in the Senate. It. was considered a fraud by the people. and a trick upon Gneral Lane. and was execrated and denounced accordingly. and yet there is no reference to these facts in the report. It is further said that. at another time. he was a candidate for the Senate. and came within ten votes of being elected. Senators must not consider that I am trying their credulity when I say that all there is in the record in any degree sustaining the statement. may be found io the testimony of Jeremiah Clark. the postmaster at Leavenworth. (page 356 of the record.) where. in detailing a conversation with Mr. Carney. he sayrs: I iy the CiEAItMAN: Question. Yea spoke of Giovernr Carney saying lie would unseat Mr. CALDAnewer. Yes. sir. Question. Did lie tell yo why he would do it Answer. 1 ius I relation to a grievaniie. as I sai before. which occurred abont six y ars ago. Ivrtn he wos a candidate for the United States Senate. a.nd when Mr. t oEoy andi ] r. Ross were electid. Question. What was that grievanco Answer. The grievance. as he tll it. was that. being a condilat for the Unlited Ste Seuate. a 1reomnent cudithto. lie had enough votes to clect ibu. lack -rg ton. and lie said th ise ton votes had to be obtailiell. hit or litss they inast tono aol he snidl lie hiid I laceol twoltiy.Sfv tlinamid dollars in thi hands Af Len. T. Sioith to procure hio those votes lie said Lea. Smith cold hini out and kept his money. On the second succeeding page. Mr. Carney denies that he said so to Mr. Clark. Such is the testimony upon which it is found that Mr. Carney came within ten votes of a seat in this body. He admitted that he tried to bribe a ummber to vote for me. and he was the only witness who did so adnit. alleging auethority from me. He acknowledged he had written n falsehood to Mr. Clarke. in order to bring about an investigation of my election. and that one of the objects in writing the false ltter was to be avenged upola rue. None of these disparaging cireumstanees. except the last one. is oven hinted at it the report. To give force to Mr. Clarkes testimony. the report says lie had been a member of Congress. that "when the lirst vote was taken in the separate houses. lie received twentyseven votesthe Iargest vote given for any candilate but one." but the report omits to state thatI was that "one ." that I got thirtyeight votes. that on the following day I was elected by twentyfive votes niore than were necessary to a choice. Nothing whatever is said of Mr. Clarkes attempt to buy the votes of J. M. Luce. Ira C. Busiek. J. M. Steele. George W. Wood. and So. Miller. or of his own very flat contradiction ef himself. To give weight to the statements of D. R. Anthony. the report is careful to say that be is the mayor of the city of Leavenworth. hot omits to mention that he had been pursuing me for years. had endeavored to contract with nte to aid in ny election for $5.OCO. and many other disparaging things disclosed by the testimiony. And. in the same connection. W. H. Burko. Mr. Anthonys editor. is referred to. but there is no mention of the fact that I had leaned him money for business purposes prior to my candidacy. and when he attempted to deprive me of my security. 1 ied instituned suit against him. Such are tile mea0 together with Willian Spriggs. who will be hereafter referred to. on whose testimony the Senate is asked to declare my election illegal. I proceed now to call attention to the specific charges in the report. and to chow from the testimoiy which of them are sustarined. and which disproved. Probably the most important one is the first one. viz. the transaction with Mr. Carney. Mr. L. . Smith. of Leavenworth. agreed witlh Mr. Carney that I should pay hn $15.000 if he would retire from the canvass. and not be a candidate in 1871. which agreement I subsequently carried out by paying the money. This agreement was evidenced 1iy a writing as libllows: I hereby agree that TI will not. ninder any cendition of ciranmetuecsc. be a candidat. for tho United States Senate in thsyear 187t without the written coaest of A. GAinWL. ndcc is easel do. to forfilt icy wod of horor hereby lodeged. I frther agreo and bind iuyself to forfeit the saua of $15.000. and authorize de pi blicaion of this agreerment.

S

Mr. CALDWELL

Unknown

CALDWELL

Unknown

M

03111873.txt

I regret exceedingly. Mr. President. that I find myself today in a condition of voice which will make it impossible for me to submit more than a very f&w remarks upon this ease. I may not be able to speak fivo minutes. I had occasion the other evening to refer to the distinction between our legislative and judicial functions. We pass here so rapidly from one to the other that we are in. danger of carrying into the judicial field somtething of the warmth which belongs to the legislative or political sphere. We are here today on our oaths as judges. We am hero todaynot to make a law. but to administer all the laws that have been maie aid which aiply to tie case of Mr. CALWELL. If those laws are imperfect. if his mcee has developed the necessity for further and more stringent enactnment. Congress may supply the defect. we cannot. sitting here as judges. aay more than it could be supplied by the judges of the Supreme Court in a case before them. The Constitution provides that the Senate shall be the judge. and what is involved in that word "judge?" Calmness and impartiality. With this conception of our duty in the present ease. you may immagimo the surprise. not to say grief. with which I listenud to the judicial opinion delivered yesterday by lily honorable friend from Indiana. [Mr. MoaToe.] I have witnessed his strength with admiration upon many an occasion. I have sometins felt it when directed against myself. but I have never seen him in the warnth of political (debate. in the excitement of a pending canvass. baring his red right hand for vengeance upon his foe. labor more to streugthen his own particular views and to undermine and weaken the views of his opponent. nor have I ever seen him in the heat of political discussion bear down with greater harshness and severity upon a political opponent than his opinion delivered yesterday bore down upon Mr. CALDNWELL. Mr. President. several years ago I was district attorney in the county of Rock. Wiscosin. There came down to serve on the grand jury a nice old deacon of the SeventhDay Baptist Church. a sweet old man. a ma of perfect integrity. a man whose seclusion from the world hald kept lIn aloof fronm any accurate anad detailed knowlelgo of its wickedies. There was nothing special o the calendar of that session to be sabofitted to the grand jury. only the ordinary routine of business. cases of petit larecny. and horsestealing. and burglary. efail swicdling anti false pretenses. &e. . and yet the exaamiatioa of tlmse cases so wrought upon tme bolings of this good old dencon as to make him sick. he could not sleel at ight. and had to alply to the court. and Judge Whiten. to whom the matter was eaplained. with a smile for the old mails innocence. excused him from further atteadence upon the grand jury at that term. Now. Mr. President. it is very rereshing to tind such innocence ii the heart and li of a man. and yet it may well be doabted whether. inl a case where the rights of a wicked man were to be tried. such a main would after all b as likely to do exact justice to a criminal as cn old acan like Shaw or Marshall. or Story or Gibson. or a hundred other judicialinaes which might be mentioned. who have been familiarized with the details of eritne by forty years experience on the bench. I have no doubt. Mr. President. that this is the explanation of the remarkable warmnth of indignation manifested by any honorable fried yesterday. to has not hail much political experience. lie has been a statesucan for many years. He hats been governor of his own State. and discharged its duties with honor to himself nd advantage to the whole country. He as acted only in those sublimer spheres which are politics in its highest acceptation. He has kacown nothing of the dirty meaans or dubious struggles by which political campaigns are carried o. IoHe lives in a tate undoubtedly republieaaa State where it is always unnecessary to expend money to secure a political resuilt. none has ever been expended in that State. You can prove that by the snatioal repuhblicane committee . you cama prove it by the gentlemen in Nev York. and Boston. and elsewhere. wob generally contribute money to carry on political campaigns in doubtful States. acid to this tact I attribute the indig atien of ay friend from Indiana in this case. who. for the first tie in his life. was informed of the nmethos employed en polities. by the testiaoay taken before this committee. I respect and venorate as I ought. the righteous indigneton of my friend from Indiana at the thought of expending money i political campaigns. Yet. Mr. President. we are to look at things as they are and deal with 1e world as it is. We cannot reonstret it for a particular occasion. Why. Mr. President. even the devil is not as lask a s hoe paincted. acd they upot wioit he towr of Siloauc fell were not sinners ".above other men." There a rtain iufirmitis of our common nature which we out aiwaysto ustiuaate when we sit in judgent tmolt oar fellowmen. If we desire to throw a mantle aroad our own bosoms ARCi 11. and shield ourselves from observation. while we send Mr. CALDWELL home as the scapegoat of all the political improprieties of this generation.that is one thing. If we peai to stand no like men and meet the responsibility which rests upo us as judges. if we menu to say that the condcnt of this elan shall be fairly examined and fairly tested. and what he has done amiss shall be criticised without favor. bat without malice. and that no matter what the press may say. and no maiter what an uninformed public sentiment niay donand. he shall suffer no wrong at our hands. then. Mr. President. we must look at things as they are. and not as we might desire to have them. How a political canvass would have been conducted in the garden of Eden I cannot say. Perhaps upon the same principles as in the State of Indiana. But. sir. in other States of this Union we have degenerated. In Wisconsin we use money in politics. I myselfycontributed five hundred or six hundred dollars (luring the last canvassnot to bribe voters. not to hire any man to veto the republican ticket. but to promote the general ends of the campaign. pay the expense of recupLious. illuminated halls. pay the expenses of distinguished speakers. send out torchlight processions. circulate docraonts. ard meet all the other expenses which are incident to a political canvass. Why. sir. we spend money in Wisconsin to maintain the church and promulgate the gospel. We payclergynme salaries. We build churches with money. We light them. we warns them. we carpet them. we cishion them. we make them as comfortable in every respect as possible. and we do all this with aonuy. Wo pay money to encourcage Srundaysclools aid Bible societies. We send agents to distribute the Scriptures acd Christian tracts. and to all of them we pay money. We seek in every possible way to throw around the institutions of religion all possible attraetioss. and Jam forced to confess that we do the same thing in politics. I may say. however. in this connection. that there has never been a charge or suspicion in our State that any election had been carried either at the polls or in the legislature by any improper means. Yet in Wisconsin money has been used in polities. Ia what State has it not been ? Therefobreo. when you come to the fact that money was drawn out of a. bank in Lawrence by men who went to Topeka the same day. yon have not advanced a peg in the investigation. as to whether that money went to bribe a legislator or whether it was used for some perfectly legitimate purpose. Mr. President. coming back to this subject as a judicial question. lot me make another remark. and that is that we ought to confine onrselves to the judicial rules of testimony. Hero is a volume of four hundred and sixtyodd pages of report and sorailed testimony. I do not hesitate to say. after a pretty thorough knowledge of what that book contains. that there are not twentyfive pages in it of testimony that would be talon in any court ofjustice. It is not even respectable hearsay. It is not hearsay at first or second hand in many iistances. It is one mans report of what another mian told him of what was the common report in Topeka. It is not testimony upon which we can found any conclusions whatever. if we mean to analyze testimony and find facts and pass deliberate j udgmont upon them. I have not the strength today. and shall not attempt to go over this testinmony in detail. I dissent from all the findings of fact contained in the report. except as to the transaction b3tween Mr. CALIWELL and Mr. Carney. which is conceded. But passing that tranactien and coming to the findings of the report that members of the legislature were actually bribed. I do not find any testimony that satisfies my mind that such was the case. I do not find any testinuony that. in myjedgmeut. would be admitted by a judicial court to go to a jury on the question of Mr. CALnrLS guilt of bribery in that oleetion. That being my view of the testimony. of course I must dissent from this report. and I must disseut frost its conclusions and must vote against the resolution the report recommends. One moment as to the transaction with Mr. Carney. and preliminary to that. what is the effect of bribery in an election iu the - absence of any statute on the subject? There is no Federal statute. there is no statute of Kansas declaring what shall be the effect of bribery in an eleecion of Senator. Of course Congress might regulate that subject and provide that if any candidate ferSenator should bribe one member of the legislature such act hoald render his clection void. But no such law has been passed. The Senator from Indiana read one authority yesterday which states it to be a principle of parliamentary law. that bribery of one elector avoids the election. I do not understand that to be the law of England atiare from statutes. I understand that that consequence was created by statute because it was not a part of the common law. I understand that the two cases which are relied upon by Mr. Shepord. are actually eases of expulsion and not cases of election declared void on account of bribery. I cannot go at length into the discussion of this subject. and I regret that I cannot. but I state my view of it and my understanding of the law. If I am right in this. then of course we cannot here apply to Mr. CAn]rwrLL any other rule than the common law. We cannot say that Mr. CALDnWELL Was not elected by that legislature. at least not unless wce find that enough members of that legislature were bribed to have ehanged the result. Now it will not be pretended by any one. from this testimony. that there is even a reasonable ground of suspicion against more than four members of that legislature. and Mr. CALDWELL was elected by twentysix majority. Mr. Bayers. on of them. has left the State. and could not be found by your committee. nobody knows where Lois. The other three members of the legislature suspected of having been bribed were called beiore yourCoue. mitiee. and everyone. on his oath. sworothab he never received a cent. Mr. President. it was said by the Senator from Indiana yesterday. I It is true they all qwear that. but we do not believe them." The report states that most of the testimony which is relied upon. which is stated in the report as matter of fact. is contradicted by different witnesses. and still it is said the committee believe so and so. Well. Mr. President. how are we to be satisfied of a fact? And this is a very important question. If we may be satisfied of facts here as we may in legislative proceedings. if we may find this man guilty as we would find a railroad corpany had been negligent in not performing its contract. and therefore say it ought not to have a renewal of its landgrant. if we may find the guilt of CALDWELL as we may find any alleged delinquency in the collection of the eustoms with a view to remedy it by legislation. in other words. if there be no differenco between the imthods of ascertaining the facts in our judicial and in our legislative capacity. then I concede the Senator may say he finds a great dent of testimony raising a painful suspicion as to the guilt of CtALWELL. And yet it is true that such testimony was met ic almost every instance by more direct testimony to the contrary. I cannot go at length into an examination of it. but I protest here that we are to proceed only upon jidieial testimony. by which I mean testinmony that would bereceived in a court of justice. What is the end proposed by a court of justice 7 Why do we look to those courts as the sanctuary of right It is because they have. by actual experiment. acquired the method of asecrtaiing truth. If their method. then. after three centuries of practice. h:s been ascertained to be the only safe guide for ascertaining the truth. why is is that we cau depart from it. and with what degree of predence can we depart from their rules ? Suppose you are trying a lsan for murder. You try him to ascerta.in whether he did kill the deceased or not. and you desire to obtain the truth. Why is it that yo will exclude hearsay I Beecauce all human experience shows that hearsay luore often conveys falsehood than fact. Men will make stateamts when they are not under oath that they would not make ni the stand and under the obligation of an oath . and if you may swear one witness alth make bin state what another man said when not on oath. yon lose the whole benefit of swearing witnesses. Hence judicial courts exclude hearsay. and it would create a rebellion to pass a law authorizing hearsay evidence in a court of justice where the title to property could be determined. and where citizens could be tried oi charge of crime. If hearsay evidence be unsafe in a court of justice: where truth is the subject of inquiry. how can you defel hearsay evidence here except upon tit gronnd that we are not after the trinth ? If yon wish to ascertain whitber Mr. CALDWELL did commit the crime charged upon him. and wish to do him justice. how are you to justify hearsay evidence here ? Will you proeced by metlods (iff retnt from those i the courts of lawby methods which three hundred years experience has discarded ? No. if justice be your object. you will proceed hero as a court of law would. and I would like to see my honorable friend from Indiana on the bench in a court of law. and sec.Mr. CALDWrELL on trial before him for bribing the iciibers of this legislature. acid to see how he would take that pencil of his and get this book called testiunony. There would not be enoghu left of it to retrin the ubrin of a book. No judge would treat it with the slightest respeet. We cannot. if we are to act like judges. If we take up that volume and examine it for the purpose of nsrertaining what facts are proved. Mr. CALOWPLL must be acquitted of the charge of bribing mcmbers of the legislature. that is. in iy jndgment. he niust be so acquitted. It we are deternied to expel Mr. CALDWELL 1and wishfor the best excuse possible for doing it. that book furnishes the best excuse that can be given. It is hearsay. it.is hearsay at thirdhand in many instances. it comes from men who swear that somebody else told them something. and when that somebody else is called oit the stand fio swears that he never did say so. yet you have there the best possible ease that can be made out if you wish for an excuse for the expulsion of Mr. CALDWELT. But I submit to Senators that if that testimony is to be examined as yo would examine testimony on the bench. Mr. CALDWELa is to be acquitted of bribing any member of the legislature. I am very sorry that I cannot go more folly into the details of this testimony. One or two things. however. I will abuse my voice to state. Mr. Carney is the great witness relied upon by the committee to convict Mr. CALnWELL. Who is Mr. Carney I He is a party to one transaction. which. in the opinion of the committee. is sufficient to consign Mr. CALDWELL to everlasting contempt. sufficient to send him away from this body disgraced and branded for life. and yet Mr. Carney. the man who obtained the money in this doubtful transaction. stands hero in the estimation of this committee. so far as the report shows. as fair as any witness ever stood. He appeared before the conimittee with that show of reluctance. that honest and sincere delicacy. which is so becoming a witness. He seemed to think that it might be suspected that he had some prosecuting hand in this business. and he desired to clothe his testimony with all the force that it would have if it came from a disinterested source. and so he goes on in this way: There are things that transpire in life betreen man and man that sbould be regarded as sacredWhat a high sense of honor he has! and that. no matter whether in friendship or in enmity. should not be revealed

S

Mr. CARPENTER

Unknown

CARPENTER

Unknown

M

03111873.txt

(Mr: Fnnii of Michigan.in the chair.) Is the Senate ready ler the question oa the resolution submitted by the Senator from Indiana? [Patting the question.]

S

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

03121873.txt

I did not expect the vote to be taken at thit time.

S

Mr. LOGAN

Unknown

LOGAN

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

If my friend will give way I will move that the Senate proceed to the consimderation of executive business. I should like to have a little time to examine some parts of this testimony myself.

S

Mr. SlIERMAN

Unknown

SLIERMAN

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

I give way.

S

Mr. LOGAN

Unknown

LOGAN

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

The Seuttor from Ohio moves that the Senate proceed to the considerration of executive business. Thu motion was agreed to. and the Snalo proceeded to the considerattion of execntive baoiiness. After twentylivo minutes spent in executive session. the doors were reopened. and (at two oclock and fortyfour minutes pt. a.) the Sonate adjourned.

S

Time PRESIDING OFFICER

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

03121873.txt

Mr. Socretary. I offer the following resolution. and ask for its present cousiderion : Resoled. "fniccnto the atsmio of tite viceoresilenttie... SLArT. H. CAarrenTi. a Snl1ator froi the Stato of NViscOisii. be. aisi he is herely. cisent President of the Senato pro tompore. The chief clerk put the question on the resolution. and it was adopted etn. con.

S

Mr. ANTHONY

Unknown

ANTHONY

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

aecordingly took the chair as President of the Senate pro tcieporc. aud said : Senators. I thanlk you sinitarely for the honor you thus confer upon me. and the best assurance I can give you that I esteem and appreclate your kindness will be my constant endeavor to perform my duties lithifully dd itmpartially.

S

Mr. CARPENTER

Unknown

CARPENTER

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

Mr. President. I offer the following resolution. and ask for its present consideration: Ilc olved. That the Secretary wait upon the President of the Untod States and infon him that. in the atsenci of the VicoPrsident. the Senate has chosen ien. AlaccI. U. CAioPNTR. a Senator from the State of Wisconsin. Presidontof theSenate pro tempor.

S

Mr. ANTHONY

Unknown

ANTHONY

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

roe teosiuore. Th jousrnal of yostordays proceed. ings will be read. The jourual of yesterdatys proceedings was road and approved.

S

The PRESIDENT

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

03121873.txt

When my colleague was sworn it the other day. his credentiaels had not arrived. They are now hero. and I beg leave to present them. and ask that they be read. The chief clerk read file credentials of lion. JoHeN P. JONES. chosen. by the legislature of Nevada at Senator from that State. for the term beginning March 4. 1873. which were read and ordered to be filed. Cettoec Or COINtMITTEES.

S

Mr. STEWART

Unknown

STEWART

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

Mr. Proeidont. before the morning business begins. in order that the business may be properly referred. I move that the Senate proceed to the election of the standing cotmittees.

S

Mr. ANTIHONY

Unknown

ANTIHONY

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

yre tempore. The Senator from Rhode Island muves that the Senate do now proceed to the election of the standing conmittecs of the Senate.

S

The PRESIDENT

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

03121873.txt

Previous to the election I offer the following resolation : Resolved. That the following eommittees be. al they are hereby (1iseon n 0cd viz. on Investigation and Retrenchment. on the Remo al of Political Disabilities. on Alleged Outrages in the Southern States. and on the Pacific ]tailroad. The resolution was considered by unanimous corsent and agreed to.

S

Mr. ANTHONY

Unknown

ANTHONY

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

I also offer the following resolution: Resolved. That there be added to the standing eommittees of the Senate a Committee oil Railroads. to consist of nine members. The resolation was considered by unanimous consent and agreed to.

S

Mr. ANTHOWNY

Unknown

ANTHOWNY

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

I offer the following resolutioe : Resolved. That hereafter the number constituting the Committee on Privileges and Elections. the Committee o Appropriations. the Committee on PostOffieos and PostRoads. and the Committee on Public Lond. be nine meombera each. The resolution was considered by unanimous consent and agreed to.

S

Mr. ANTITHONY

Unknown

ANTITHONY

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

Mr. President. I move that the Select Committees on the Revision of the Rules. on the Levees of the Mississippi. and on Trasportation Routes to the Seaboard. which were established at the last session. be reappointed. The nmotioni was agreed to.

S

Mr. ANTHONY

Unknown

ANTHONY

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

I now move that so much of the rule as requires that the chairmen of the several committees be elected by ballot be disponsed with.

S

Mr. ANTHONY

Unknown

ANTHONY

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

I offer nominations for the standing and select conmuittees of the Senate. in the shape of a resolution.

S

Mr. ANTHONY

Unknown

ANTHONY

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

pre teoepore. The question is. will the Senate agree to tliis resolution ?

S

Tie PRESIDENT

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

03121873.txt

I ofer one more resolution: lteaolved. That it shall be the duty of the Committee ei Rules to make and en. force all rules and regulations respecting the reporters gallery of the Senate and the oceopatior thoref acid aidi eemmite in dircete to taba such netion. from time is tim e. n o will confis e te ac pa i o of a d gaIlery to t -fs: ido reporters for daily wewpapers. taking nrot to exceed one seat to each paper cud said com. mitree shall have power to provide a scat or srats on ti3 ar for Associatod Prees repartecs. end to regulate the occipatioi of the same. The resolution was considered by unanimous consent and agreed to.

S

Mr. ANTHONY

Unknown

ANTHONY

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

I think. now that we have the committees. we ought to go into executive session for a few minutes. and distribute the busiuss that bolongs to those committees. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive business.

S

Mr. RAMSEY

Unknown

RAMSEY

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

Mr. President. by leave of the Senator from lii. nois. [Mr. LOGANcJ who is entitled to the floor. I will this morning. in answer to a question asked tao yesterday in debate. and I believe the day before also1 read some autlirities upon the question whether bribery was an offense at common law before the enactment of any statute punishing it. and whether the seats of mesnbers of the House of Contosons had been declared vacant o account of bribery before any statute had been passed upon that subject. With the indulgenteof the Senate. I will read very briefly sone authorities upon that point. I read first fromn Rogerss Law and Practice of Elections. It is an English work. I believe of the highest character upon this subject. published in London as long ago as 1837. Mr. Rogers says: But nmarous instances have not been wanting. in more modern times. in which the courtof kings bench bave. by the rigor of their purishments. vindicated the freeiloa of elections. Informations. and indietmets at the commuon law. as wel as action. upon tbe statutof a Gseorge lIe. 4. have there been prosected. not oty by private individuale. Litt by the attorneygneral. liy order of the Heaos of Coat. mons. To bribe a Voter is net only an infrligeaent of parliamentary privlego. it is moreca high misdemeanor aod breach of the eommon law. The first time the subjeio of bribery appears to have been brought before the house was In tho reign of Elizabeth. Outs Thomas Long cave the rotrinolicor and others of the borough of West. bury fiar pounds to be returned memer. For this efltese the torough was amerced. the member removed. and the officer filed and imprisoned. I have here Cokes Institutos. in which that case is quoted. and I will read an extract from it : Thomas Long gave tc mator of Westbury four pound to be elected burgesso. who thereupon was elcted. This matter wai examined and ljuidged in the Hene efCoinunoit b eceutd n legem et soonsuet din ) parliaiteati. a il the trincise lt(i antil iuprisenad. and Long removed. for this corrupt dealing was to poyson the very fnamIt itisef. That was the first case. and was nearly a hundred years before any statute was enacted punishing bribery. Mr. Rogers further says: But it was sot until the cnd of the reign of Charles I thst corruption at nleutions prevaileti to any great exteit. In the year 1C69a hill "to prevent aqiene and ortrAvgances in electing mombers to servs in Parliament. and for regulating elections." was throwin out. In the Bodly case. 1670. the committee of privileges and elcclions reported that Mr. Foley. one of the candidates. had been gtilty of bribery. The louse passed two rosMutions. one declaring Mr. Foloys elootien to bevoid. and the other eating his amitgounist. Air. Hobart. lit 1677. the treating resolution passed. and in the year fillowing was made a standing order (if the house. By that cesolation. for i cndidate to give any prcon having a voice at an election meat. drink. or presiet. i gift. alter til tests of the writ. was declared to be bribery. and to be a saiiclent ground for the avoiding the election as to every pcerson so offending. That was a mere resolutios of the house declaring what would be the action of the house in such a ease. It was not a law. ad did not become a law until a great many years afterward. In 1680 a bill -o prnvent the offensea of bribery and debauchery ceonneoted with election proceedings was thrown out. Parliament refused to pass it. Iin 1689 a bill to prevent abuses occasioned by exceseive expenses at elections of membece to serve in Pfarliament. haviti. been read once. was also thrown ott. This wes the year in which the Stockbrigo case wits determined. which. being contidered to be of a very gross nature. it wa proposed for the borough tobe disfranchised. The case of Mitchell and Wootton Bassett followcd. in the year 1690. the eases of Chippenliam and Ayloury in 161. and the second Stockbridge ease in 1693 . in each of which. bribery boing proved against the sitting member or members. the elections were avoided.

S

Mr. MORTON

Unknown

MORTON

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

Will the Senator stop there one moment while I ask hint whether the last case he read was antecedent to the order of the House of Commons which preceded the statute?

S

Mr. CONKLING

Unknown

CONKLING

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

No. sir. it is subsequent. The resolution of the house was passed in 1677. was simply made a standing order of the house. as it was called. but was not a law. and another authority shows that it was a declaration of the line of action that the house would adopt in such cases. How general had become the system of corruption. and how insufficient the ex. isting laws e.nd resoltins to arcest Its prgreon. .i filly proved. by te glnri. g exanmiles jast cited. follocwing each other iii such rapid suecesalon. Those co had oppeosed the bills of 1616. of 1660. and ef 16619. new tie tuemselves called open en adopt a different lie of conduet. The epion of the wieot acid mcol huott ettamen. bi obodod in e rsittiosocd sraniig ordero of the house. haul been see ot deisnce. titd the fIst cu~d beot piiile of rte censtitation. cte freedom of elcti. was daily mid nntlnelgly violated. Tebiag. thereore. the raatiag resolution of 1077 ~r its basis . h ps the 7 William I11. . . now generally known by the name of tho treating act. making it an offense to give meat or drink to a man who had the right to vote. and that was the first enactment ever passed by the British Pacliement upon the subject. Hitherto treating bad been considered as a apecio only or mode of bribing. Since the act of Willian. however. treating and bribery have usually been considered as separate charges and distinct grounds of petitionin. First. then. of bribery. properly so called. A candidate or ether person is said to be guilty of bribing. i. "by himself. or any person employel by him. he doth or shall. by any gift or reward. or by any promise or agreement. or security for any gift or reward. corrupt or procure any person to give his vote. or to forbear to give his vote. in any such election." Snob is the definition which is given of bribery in the statute 2 George I1. o. 24. which was the first act ever passed punishing bribery. and that was passed in 1727. Mr. Rogers goes on to say : This statute. hesover. did not create the offense. bribery. as we have seen. had always been a isdemeoanor at common law. and a violation of the privilege of Farliment. but the above statute armed courts of law with new anid extraordinary powers to check the growingeviil. by attachieg a penalty of £500 an every cenvic. tlon. f an offense against it previsions. and by disqualifying the offender from ever again voting in any election for members of Parliament. Not only this authority. but Sheperd lays it down distinctly that the power of the House of Commons to declare an election void upon the ground of bribery is not affected by the statute at all. but grows out of the principles of the common law. Now I will refer to a case that I referred to the day before yesterday. in Burrow-

S

Mr. MORTON

Unknown

MORTON

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

I wish to ask my friend from Indiana a question upon the very point he is now discussing. especially in connection with a quotation from Sheperd. used by him in his remarks the other day. The quotation that I refer to is this: Bribery by a eandidate. though in one instance only. and though a majority of unbribed votes remain in his favor. will avoid the particular election. I wish to ash him whether he finds in our own parliamentary history in either House of Congress. or in England. any particular case where the bribery of a particular person. though it did not affect the election. or did not control the election. unseated the member. Mult not the bribery extend to a sufficient number of votes of the constituent body to affect the result ? That is the question upon which I desire information.

S

Mr. SHERMAN

Unknown

SHERMAN

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

I will state that in all these cases no reference is made to the number of votes that had been purchased. It is never put upon that ground. but it is put upon the ground exeressed by Lord Coke. that bribery poisons the whole fountain. Th5 effect of bribery in avoiding an electioi is never put upon the number of votes that have been bribed. but simply upon the act as poisoning the whole election. to use the language of Lord Coke. poisoning the whole fountain. and it has been compared by another author to fraud in a contract. What fraud is to a contract. bribery is to an election.

S

Mr. MORTON

Unknown

MORTON

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

In the House of Representatives there are many casesI do not know whether oases of bribery. but many cases of fraud in elections. but unless the frauds in the election go to a aufficient extent to affect the majority of the elected ceadidate. they are governed by the actual number of legal votes cast. although frauds. violence. intimidation. and perhaps bribery may have entered hate it. That is the point I want to get at. whether there is any distinction in parliamentary law between fraud and bribery.

S

Air. SHERMAN

Unknown

SHERMAN

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

I am not prepared to answer that question any further than this: I consulted with the chairman of the Committee on Elections in the House. who. I believe. has been the head of that committes for many years. aid he told me there had been no ease of bribery arising in the Hosen with which the candidate was connected. I think he said he did not doubt but that the law would be in the House. as it is in England in a case of bribery with which the candidate or sitting member was connected. to invalidate the election. Mr. President. I will read an authority fromu LordMausfiel. This decision was made in 1762. In this case the prosecution was based on the common law. not on the statute of George i. and a motion was made for a nonsilt. upon the ground that the ease should have been brought upon the statute. and not upon the common law. Lard Mansfield said : Bribery at elections for members of Parliament must undoubtedly have always beu a Calsne at common tow. and. consequently. punishable by indicticrat or ifyer. mation. But thi act of 2 George i. 0. 24. has* introduced a Vecd esrs penally in order to enforce the laws then already in being. and because they mid not been 8upleat to prevent the evil He then goes en to quote the statute. and after that he says: This crime cortisslystill remai n a crime at common law. Tie legislatere never meant to take away the commonlaw crime. but to add a poal action. There is more of it. but that is sufficient to explain its character. Now I come to the statement that my friend read from Sheprd jhst now. and I will detain the Senate for a moment by calliug his attention to a passage in the argument read by Mr. CALDWELL yesterday. which. I suppose. it would be no breach of etiquette to say must have been prepared by a lawyer. not by himself. he does not claim to be a lawyer. He makes the statement that there is no case where a member of Parliament bad been expelled before the enactment of thestatute punishing bribery. His lawyer ought not to have made such a statement. because it is directly in conflict with what he ought to have known was the law. Bet he makes another statement: English Aatutelaw urovides that" bribery by a candidate. thoogh in one instance only. and though a majority of nubribed votes remain in his favor. will avoid the partieular election. and disqualify him for being reeloctod to fill such vacaucy." The passage is put in quotation marks as being taken from an English statute. There could scarcely be an excuse for this. He refers to Sheperd. page 103. Now. I will read that. The fact was. that 8heperd said thaT the power of the House of Commons over the election did not depend upon the statutelaw at all. but depended upon the law of Parlinent. and then he gave the law of Parliament. which is quoted hero as the statute. Says Shepord: The bribery c makes no iention of any parliamentary disqualification affecting a members seat. the offect. therefore. of an act of bribery not within the words of the treating act act of 7 William I1. c. 4. is in that respect oletermined by the law of Parliamuort. as follows: "Bribery. by a candidate. though in one instanco only and thngl a .a ority of unbribed vOos remain in his favor. will avoid the particular elec.tin. and disqualify him from being rs.nlectod to fill such vacancy." Hero Mr. Shoperd expressly states that the power of the house to declare an election void does not depend upon the statute. hut depends upon the law of Parliament. but Mr. Caldwolls counsel just reverses it. and he says that the statute of England says so sad so in regard to bribery avoiding the election. which is the particular point which Mr. Sheperd was contradicting. There are several other authorities which I thought I bad here. but I have left them on the table in my committeeroom. Perhaps I shall have occasion to read them afterward. as the debate progresses. This is all I intend to say this morning.

S

Mr. MORTON

Unknown

MORTON

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

By the indulgence of the Senator from Illinois I wish to occupy a moment on the question which has been put by the Senator frmn Ohioa question which we cannot avoid. and which goes in one aspect of this case to the root of the matter. It has been said by the Senator from Indiana. and by others. that. anteior to any British statute. and anterior to that standing order of the House of Commons which immediately afterward became a statute. two cases can be found in English history in which the Commons avoided an election. held it to be null and void. because of bribery by a member. I had received this statement as a verity until we were called upon to investigate this case. and now. as we are all engaged in a common pursuit of knowledgo. I want to confess ray inability to vindicate. by examination. this assertion. I nan find no instance in which. in the British Parliament. anterior to the statute. or to that order of the House of Commons which I will read. and which immediately after became a statute. any exercise of power was even proposed going to the extent of annulling ab initio an election because of bribery by the candidate of a particular person. I say now "of a particular person." in order to guard my statement. although the authorities do not so guard it. The two ceases so continually referred are the ease of Long and the case of Halls. They were neither of them instances of avoiding the eletion. I will say also. in passing. lest I fail to recur to it. in a moment. that under the English statute of George. and its repetition in the reign of Victoria. no power is committed to the Houme of Commous to annul an election because a particular person is bribed. The statute works a forfeiture il the sitting member. works a forfeiture in the nature of a penalty. NOW. lot me look at these two cases. I read from Male on Eleetions. a work very familiar in its authority to the Senate. perhaps to all the members of the Senate: The fmeus case of Walter Long. bribing the mayor and corporation of Westbury. in the reign of Elizabeth. is no otherwise worth noticing in a legal treatiso than to show the punisiunent the House of Commons fixed npoa itby fining the parties and vacating the scat. "By fining tie parties and vacating the scat." a procedure. the Senate will see. not under a clause. had there been such. in the British constitution. endowing Parliament with the power to judge of elections. qualifications. and returns. but an exertion of power under that inherest attribute in every parliamentary assemlyI should have a right to say that it inheres. if I had not the authority of Chief Justice Shaw behind me. inherent without any constitutional endowmentto protect itself. to guard its privileges. to expel intruders. to expel the authors of disorder. to rid itself of a man with either a physical or a moral infection. Proceeding under that. as punishmeit. they fined a member. and they fined the mayor and corporation of Wstbury. and they vacated the seat. And in Arthur liallos case. at no great distance of time. they did the same. The unusual exorcise af this assumed power of fining. and the difficulty of enforcing p tymeis. occasioned a doubt whether such a power had. in fact. been assumed by te=iseso of Commons.

S

Mr. CONKLING

Unknown

CONKLING

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

The power to assess the fine.

S

Mr. MORTON

Unknown

MORTON

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

I read the text again : The unusual exercise of this assumed power of fining. and the difficulty of en. forcing payment. occasioned a doubt whether such a power had. in fact. boon assumodhy the ousoe of Commons. It led to a historical dispute whether in truth any such thing had over been done. but unquestionably it had been done. because there has descended to us the order placed upon the journals of the house in the very words. This commentator proceeds: It was bold in the sase of The King vs. PittThat is the case which the Senator read from Burrowsthat bribery is an offense at common law. subject to indictment on information. * . . Prosecntions at common law for this offense were never put in practice. however. till of late years. since the 2 George II. for which IMr. Douglas seems to haev given eatisfaotory reasons. Male then proceeds to say that this evil being crying. the House of Commons "made a standing order of the house. and. with some trifling variations. was shortly after molded into a statute." Now I will read the latter part of this standing order of the House of Commons. I pass over all the recitals of the things which should constitute the offense. and I onic to the penalty denoeuced against it: That every person and persons so giving. preoenting. or allowing. making. promiimg. or enrag ing. ((0mg. acting. or puneendiug. shall b. nrid are lereby. (eclaredL and enacted to be disabled and incapacitated upon such election to serv in Parliauneet for suct. county. city. town. borOgli. port. or place. and that such poron or persons shall bodl cmd and taken. and are hereby declared and cnauted to be dcemed and taten. 1o moembers in Parliamnent. and shall e t act. sit. or have any vote or place in Parliameut. bat shall be. and are hereby. declared al enacted to be. to aIl intent. construclions. and purposes. as if they had never boon returned or elected members for the Parliament Air. President. I need not dilate upon the distinction hero manifest between the force oves of this statutoI call it a statte because. although it was first an order of one house. they adopted the phraseology "declared aud enacteet"

S

Mr. CONKLING

Unknown

CONKLING

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

To what did that order extend ?

S

Mr. MORTON

Unknown

MORTON

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

I will tell the Senator in cue moment. I need not. I say. dilate upon the manifest distinction between the force and effeet of this Statute as it was. and of this statute asitwould have been had it declared that in such case no forfeiture ef the rigot to sit should be worked. but the election should be. and was in point of fact null and void at initio. But these two eases are referred to to show us that. anterior to te statute. anterior to an order of the Commons which was observed with the forces of a statute. it was the comnmon law of England. not merely that bribery was indictable or the subject of information. but that the common law of England or the law of Parliament held that showing that a member returned had been guilty ofgiving a bribe to any person. ipsofaote undid. annulled. vitiated. obliterated the whole proceeding called an election. Mr. President. if these two cases are to be taken to establish only as much as is reported of them. we are left as to the precedents. upon my understanding. as we are uon reason. to solve the question put by the Senator from Ohio. and for the sake of stating that question I assume that there is no distinction between inquiring into the case of o e returned to the House of Representatives and of one chosen by a State a member of this body. Assuming. for the sakeof the argument. that the eases are upon allfours. then it seems to use in this present ease. in one aspect of it at least. we mitst coifront this question. A member comes. as one did quite recently. a former colleague of my frieud from Illinois. from a district ie Illinois. by a majority of fourteen thousand. it turns out that lie. or another acting for him. promised to one elector that. on condition of his support. the candidate. if chosen. should nominate his son as idshipmali at Annapolis. That is the case clearly proven as I will suppose. there can heno doubt about it. The question which arises is whether. although a majority of fourteen thousand nebribed and uninfluenced voters concurred in the election of the member of Congress. that mimnber is to be refused his seat or ousted. not because of his turpitude. not because he ought to be expelled for having groveled in the dcgradation of tamnpering with one of his constituents. but because in truth and in fact the whole election is vitiated. Mr. President. iu considering that question there is one other consideration. and only onebecause I am trespassing oi tie politeness of my friend from Illinoisto which. at this moment. I ask attention. You wilt observe. by looking at all the petitions that I have been able to find in the books which have been referred to. that the contestant or protestant alleged. iu so many words. that the election of the sitting member had been controlled by bribery. That was the stereotyped allegation. "controlled by bribery." and I think Senators will find. by examiniug.tho authorities. that. except in regard of the personal forfeiture worked in the sember if he was privy to the bribery. it never was hold material whether the bribery proceeded friom the macusber. or fron somebody else. To illustrate. a assember conies to the House of Representatives with a majoriLy of three haundred. It turns out that when he was chosen he was beyond seas. ie could not have been physically or constructively present. but. in the heal of the canvass. passionate and unadvised partisans corrupted elector to the number of more than one hundred and fifty. which would neutralize the majority. I think the cases shnewI think the Senator from Ohio will bear me out in sayingthat the practice of the House is such as to imply that that election is tainted. that it is stricken down as effectually. the bribery being proved. if it turns out that the man elected to the seat was no party to it. as if it turns out that he was. The 9nestio is. was the election controlled by bribery I Suppose his friends have controlled it by bribery I A Roman poet had told u that there is no color in nooney. one mans money is as filthy as anothers. and if it went into the pockets of those whose votes were controlled by it. how does it matter. in considering the vice. or the validity of the election. whether the money proceeded originally from the man who claimed the seat. or from illadvised and wicked partisans who espoused him? Thus. I think. the Senate must see. in considering this question. if we are to act in the absence of a statute which works a personal forfeiture by way of penalty. and inflicts it upon the man guilty of the turpitude of briberyif we are to act without that. and come to the broad question of the effect. upon the election itself. of bribes given and received. the case must be the same whether the bribe be paid by the man who chisily profited by it. or whether it bo paid by partisans who. Eerhaps.with designs equally selfish. expected to promote themselves y the work they did. Am I right in that? If I am. I have reached a point in this inquiry which reveals a grave consideration. Can it be that if a Senator. be he as pure as the driven snow. or a member of tie House of Representatives. be he never so guileless. has boon so unfortunato as to be espoused by some man fool enough or knave enough to give to an elector. or two. or three. or soine other number falling short of affecting the inajority. money or any Inrative enaideraiuuand a promise of office is thatan it be. I say. that if a wicked or rash friend has pronmised one elector that lie shall be sustained aid promoted to office by the lut whose election is in question. that that election is vitiated. audthat we have n case satisiing the huomnorial allegation of the petitions in the British Parliament that the election was controlled by bribery ? One other word. Ar. President and I have done. When we comie to consider Mr. CALDWEJLs case. if we do. upon the question whether his act. although it be with only one member of the legislature. or only two whomi he bribed. liestens upon him that turpitude ie his action as n candidate for the Senate which authorizes us. under ti expulsion clsuse. to lay our hand upon him and place the seal of our disapprobation upon him. miny of these questions will vanish. ln when we consider tile case as it has been considered lip to this momat. upoi the question whether the bribery alleged. of one. or two. or three. or four members of the legislature in which he received a majority of twentyfive. is suflelent causenotto expel him. not ground on which a forfeiture might be worked in him to hold his seat. but a ground on which we can say that. in point of fact. no election whatover took place. that the whole thing was ull and void ab initio. then. So long us that question confronts us. I think it material to bear ii miid the length to which the doctrine may carry us.

S

Mr. CON KLING

CON

KLING

Unknown

M

03121873.txt