Datasets:

Eugleo

/

us-congressional-speeches

like 0

Mr. Presilent. I desire. in the presence of the Senate. to examiae this question. and shall probably do so in a somewhat different light from that in which it has heretofore been examined. I shall not detract from the truth as presented in this case in any way whatever. I wish to present it in a fair and impartial manner. to give such weight to the testimony as it is entitled to. both bearing against and for the Senator here charged with an offense. When we reflect upon the history of the recent past. we need not wonder tht examinations of queostios recently before the country have beet prosecuted in a somewhat novel manner. There have bemi exeitentets of all kinds and characters inudifferent ages of the world. We are but htanan. our prejudices can be aroused. and Somsetinses to such ats extent as to override our reason and better judgmet. We read of times gone by when no mans liberty or character was safe. when communities were aroased to such an extent that they sreCed to thirst for the destruction of human life. We have read of times gone by. when to charge an individual with an offense was sufficient to cause the courts to announce their judgment of eondemtation. There was a time. oven in this country. when the best were selected as victims. charged with offenses. and upon uhoin the deathsentence was pronounced froe the judges bench without evidence or -ean. We have the history of the past before us. we read of the cruelties that have been at times perpetrated by those in power. the cidetunatioun of itnocent persons. the trials aod convictions of persons for pretended offenses that could not possibly have been perpetrated. We see. too. in this very day of ours. in this Republic. the people aroused to a great extent. and we all know it to be the flct that ii the feverish ecitement of the public mind. now to charge a man with crime is almost a condemnatiou without a hearing. We know it to be a fact now in this country that on the mere publication of a charge against an individual. it is taken for granted that it is true. and when lis defense is presented it is net teen read by the people who have misjudged and prejudged his case. We have seen. I aom smry to say. in recent investigations. the order of trial reversed. We who have read and nunlerstanel th rules of law have bee taught lo believe that each and every man charged with an offense is lresnuied innocent until the contrary appears by legal and osmpotent testimony. It his been the rule heretofore that muen when put upon trial wore to hear the charges against them. were to be confronted with their ceusers. face to face. to hear the testimony against theta. and then. if any offense was proven. were required to answer. Strango to say. this rule is now reversed. We noe find. in soeine stances. that the man charged with an offense must come and prove his innocence. without any evidence whatever being produced against him. If be fails in that he is pronounced guilty. and if he accomplishes it by his own statement. then search is made for testimony to contradict him. The time hns been when the word of a Senator was worth something in this chamber. but. I am sorry to say. that time has pased away. Formerly a Senators word was taken as true ustil competenti and proper testimony should overthrow it and show that he was utiworthy of belie. But now the rule is changed. The veriest and vilest wretch on earth may charge a Senator with an offense. and lie may come before a committee and swear to that charge. and it is taken for greeted that lie has sworn the truth. but. if the Senator swears to the contrary. it is taken for granted that lie has pinured himself. This appears to me to be a strange mode to adopt. Mr. President. we sit here today Judges and jurors. Each Senator is a judge. to examine the law and the testimony for himself. having within his control and judgment the rights and reputation of those who are presented for trial bfore this august body. Our duty is to hear and determine this case according to tholaw and the testimony as it has bee produced before the committee and before the Senute. If a person were on trial before a court for the crime of "Itrder. if a. thief were on trial before a court for grand larceny. or a robber were on trial for robbery. the testimony woull be heard. and thou thecourt would say to the jury. the law is so and so as to lareciry. or. the law is so and so as to murder. or. the law is so and so as to robbery. but you. the jurors trying this case. must weigh the testimony in the case. and if you have a reasonable doubt in your minds. arising from all the testimony. as to the guilt of the party accused. you will find "not guilty." That would be the rule in trying a murderer. it would be the rule in trying a thief or a robber. Bat what rule do wo propose to apply to one ot our own body when he is tried upon the charge of bribery and corruption which would render Lim infamous in the eyes of the American people? The rule. according to the argument we have heard here. is this: that his denial and testinony in his favor are taken for nothing. no reasonable doubt is permitted to arise in our minds. every one who swear against him must necessarily swear the truth. every one who swears for him must be presumed to swear falsely. every charge made against him must be true. but all testimony tending to exculpate him must be perjured testimony. This is the tendecy of the argument that we hear in reference to those charged with offenses in this Senatechamber. We are supposed. at least. to try men according to law. to try them according to the r"les of justico. and to determine the rights of thoso who are sent here by States of this Union according to the principles of justice. and at least give them the rights of murderers. Mr. President. I shall examine. before I conclude my remarks. what I conceive to le the law in this case. but will merely give it a passing examination at present. Suppose we take the rule laid down here as the rule by which we are to be guided in the judgment of this mans rights today. that is. that if any one single instance of bribery is proven. (which I deny in tots.) though having no effect upon the election whatevereven if it were a mere attempt without the fact itself being accomplishedthe election is void by reason of fraud. and the Senator must be unseated. Would that be just ? Let us examine for a moment and see whether this is a proper rule for us to be guided by in the examination of a legislative act. Suppose that a legislature passes an act. and after the act is signed and becomes a law. you prove that a portion of the members who voted for that law were improperly influenced to cast their votes for it. I asic you as Senators whether that would vitiate the law It is a recognized aut of the legislature. and one that the courts have decided you cannot go behind. Now take this ease as far as the act of the legislature is concerned. the election of Mr. CA.DWELL is an aet of the legislature. certified to and regularly presented to the Senate of the United States. If the position of my friend front Indiana is correct. that a more attempt to bribe a member of the legislature vitiates that election. you go behind the whole net after metives. you drive the member elected out of the Senate . you declare the act of the legislature void because of that mere attempt. Upon what rule or theory do yon do this? On e rule based usion certain statutes of England. which have Ireen read here. but whieli have no application and no binding force so far is we are concerned. There isI state it to be the factnot one solitary case of the kind tnder the common law. and the common law is applicable. if anything. for we have no statute ourselves. cud I defy the production of one solitary case which is a parallel to this. Loungs case eud Hlalles case. the two which are cited. and the only ones that can be referred to. are not eases that can be madb to apply to the one before us.

S

Mr. LOGAN

Unknown

LOGAN

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

Will my friend allow ise to interrupt lie 7

S

Mr. MORTON

Unknown

MORTON

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

Cortaiuly.

S

Mr. LOGAN

Unknown

LOGAN

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

I think I eght to make a stateniot here in justice to myself and other members of this conmnitteo. The question came rp in committee. about the timo the report was a6roed upea by the najority. as to whether we should report a resolution of expalsion or a resolution declaring the election invalid on account of the clisrges made. I beolived that botl remedies existed. that it was competent to declare the eleetioninvalid. orit was competent to report a resolution of expulsion upon the ground that the power of expulsion wis absolute. I think the Senator from Mississippi. and the Senator from Georgia. (Mr. Hill.) not now a member of this body. agreed with me. but. according to my recollection. the Senator front Illinois who is net now r meroler of the Senate. (Mr. Trumbull.) and the honorable Senator from Illinois. now on the floor. and the Presirlent of tie Senate. [Mr. CAnesEanunj andperhaps one other Senator. thought it went to invalidate the election rather than to expulsion. aid it was their opinion that determined the character of the resolution which was reported. That being my distinct recollection about it. of course I was not prepared to hear an argument from the Senator from Illinois to the effect that there was no authority for saying that these things would invalidate the election.

S

Mr. MORTON

Unknown

MORTON

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

Mr. President. I did not lenow that a Senator was conined to any remarks he may have made ontsido of this chaniber in discussing a question such as that now before us. The Senator might have saved himself the trouble of interrupting me. for i ia few moments I would have statefito hins and to the Senate what my views are in reference to this matter. I do not desire to detail the discussions we had in a committeeroom. or to state how a committee arrived at a certain conclusion. As I said yesterday. it is enough for the Senate to know that I dissented from the report. and I have a right to base my dissent upon any argument that scers proper in my judgment. I did say to the Senator. and I say now. that at the time we first commenced investigating tids ease. I was inclined. iln case the proof should be sufficieut. to hold that the charge wen to invalidate the election. but on examining the subject further I came to thie conelusion that I was incorrect in that impression. and I dissented frons the report gonerally. The reasons for my dissent the Senators will ascertain before I am through. Mr. President. without detaining the Senrate longer in regard to the legal qiestiou at this stage of the argument. I propose. if I have the ability. as I believe I havobecause it does not require very muchto show that upon the testimony produced before the investigating committee you are not warranted in finding Mr. CAtwVEL. guilty of any act of bribery. Further. I propose to show that there is not one solitary witness that testified against Mr. CALDWELL. upon whom my friend from Indiana relies. who is not contradicted by from two to three witnesses. We differ in roferince to this matter. but it ought not to be auy cause of feeling between us. it is a mere dilfereace of judgment in reference to what the testimony proves . and I say that I propose to show that every witness. upon whoi the Senator from Indiana relies to convict Mr. CALDWELL. has beon contradicted by from two to three and sometimes four witnesses. men of better reputation than the mau who testified against Mr. CALDWELL. I think I can do that. In the first place. if Mr. CAeDwmeL is to be found guilty of anything. he must be found guilty from the testimony. That testimony must be competent testimony. it must be believable testimony. such as will have weight before a body of men who are inclined at least to do justice toa fellowman. God knows we ought not to desire to do injustice. and as the length of time allotted to us in this world is but a span. we ought to approach a case of this magnitude with nothing ii our hearts to cause us to do injustice to any man. The first testimony that I will examine is that of the honorable Mr. Clarke. for he is an honorable man. the Senator from Indiana says he is an honorable man. Let us see how this honorable man testilies against a better man than himself. Let nr tell you befiore I coe to his tstiniony something ofMr. Clarkes conduct. and ifI do not state it correctlyl am subject to correction. Mr. Clarke was a caldidate for the United States Senate at the same time that Mr. CXtiuWEL was. He denied under oath that he ever hald any arrangeasent x with

S

Mr. LOGAN

Unknown

LOGAN

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

denied time and again. in his testimony. that he Over hadanyarrangoment. either directly or indirectly. with Mr. CADWEL by which he was to turn over his friends to Mr. CALDWEL1LS support. for any consideration whatever. Ie camei to the Senateehausber over a year ago with a bloodletter in his hand. presenting it to eertaiin Senators to read. in which itwas charged that fourteen members of tIm legislaturo of Kansas were purchased. and that Governor Carney could swear to their names. Ho presented this letter to Senators iit order to prejudice then. and then went to Mr.CALDWnLLSshowig him this lotter. as Mr. CALOWELL states. (and I believe every word of it.) and demanded blackmail of bin. saying that if he did not give itio wonl punish him here before the Senato. This is the kind of maun the honorable Sidney Clarke is. lie admits that he came to Mr. CAL)WLu several times. denies. however. that he demanded money. but says that each time he came Mr. CALDWELL mado excuses for not having paid the losney prior to that time. Tie honorable Sidney Clarke was a witness befoe the Committee on Privileges and Elections. I hope it is revealing n secrets to state that fact. lIe was not only a witness. but he was the prosecutor from day to day. furnishiiig testimor to the committee. exaraining witnesses as counsel. and when the fu iaeo Caamn. and we were winding up the testimony. this honorable Sidney Clarke asked leave to file a written argument against Mr. CALoweLt.r before the committee. which was denied upon my objection. This is the honorable witness who testifies againstMr. CIuLDw LL. a proseerting witness. and then. after being both witness and prosecutor. asks leave to file an argument beside his testimony against this man. that he might destroy him. I propose now to examine the testimony of the honorable Sidney Clarke. and see how lie swears. If he does not swear swiftly. then the record lies. I will refer to the pages. so that the Senator front Indiana cau see what I read. On page 2. after speaking of visiting Mr. CALDWELL. hto mentions a conversation ia regard to which lie makes the following statement: Mr. CALDnMtIt. hten said. in substance. l at success. his own suctess. weulld o away with the stiesa of the trarsaction. replsing to my ideattat thes ineof uoey. as lie nlilersioot itT cart express it exactly as lie did but that his own sucecs woult do away with it . sn said to me. You. see what I have done rero. arfilyi"o must lave bee es touslderaiblO expense il paying tie expenses of your frierhis ar..t cerdluctin the canvass :" culd he ulan. erted Iris willingness to defray sttch expensespoliielii expeasesas had been to in the canvass. That is what tie honorable Mr. Clarke testifies tothat Mr. CALDWELL proposed then to him to pay his expenses. Then the Senator from Rhode Island asled hint the question: Qurestion. Iow lid Ile mlifest him williigiess? Did lie say e woulddo it Answer. Yes. sir. lee proised to ro to do it. Its also said to ise that another senatorial eleetion was to occur two years leres. aii dt I woild give him my polut ictl iflenc. or if my friiis would. he woold pledge te to do whatever was i tis power to secure cry election. After that Mr. Clarke testifies that lie declined this proposition. he declined to have anything to do with it. You will find. then. on page 257 What Mir. Clarke says further: Qaestion. Did yon over at any time or ilate male any request of Mtr. CaLe wtnr.. Or any ef iris friends. that he sirnli play yeor expienses. or any portion of then. or coiA*ltihtta t all to tlla I Answer. No. ir . unless the statement I made to him that be should conclude or settle this arrangement that lie made with StevensHe Says he never did. unless what he said to Mr. CALnDWELL in reference to concluding an arrangement that he made with Mr. Stevenscan be construed into that. For myself. individnally. I can answer. I did not. Question. You say you never had conversations with him at any time in regard to any expenses. except those of Stevens. Anower. You de not understand me. except as to the arrangement which he made with Stevens. 0 * * question. That comes to this: that when you said he ought to pay Stevense claim. you meant he ought to pay all these elaims I Answer. I meant that he ought to carry out the understanding he iad entered into with Stevens. Question. Which was to pay all your expenses 9 Answer. Yes. sir. First he declined any arrangement whatever with Mr. CALDWELL. then he says in conversation he maant nothing except that Mr. CALDWELL ought to carry out the arrangement made with Mr. Stevens. and finally he says that that meant to pay his expenses. Quetion. What amount did Hr. Stevens claim I nswer. I do not kow. I think twelve or fifteen thousand dollars was talked of as what it should be. Question. Were your expenses included I Answer. I do not know that they were mentioned. but I think they were in. eluded. Such is the testimony of Mr. Clarke in reference to that proposition. but I wish to follow it ip by this statement: Mr. CALDWO:LL denies the arrangement in tote. and Mr. Stevens. Mr. Clarkes friend. with whom he pretends this arrangement was made. could not be found. although lie was their witness. Nobody knows why he was not produced. The testimony farther shows that Mr. Clarke called on Mr. CALDWELL three or four times. and that he domadded of Mr. CALDWELLand Mr. Clarke testifies to that himselfthat Mr. CADWmLL should procure the appointment of certain persons in Kansas to office. but Mr. CALDWELL decined to do it. that they had a disagreeenet about these appointments. that afterwards Mr. Clarke came to see

S

Mr. CALDWELL

Unknown

CALDWELL

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

Mr. Clarke still persisted in saying that Mr. CALDWELL merely excused himself for not having carried out this arrangement. You will dud on page 16 that Mr. Clarke makes this statemont. speaking of a conversation that he had with Mr. CALDWEILL: Question. Was there anything in this conversation in which Mr. CALDWELL enid he wanted to fix the matter up with you instead of Stevens in regard to the amount -any question raised in regard to the sum ? Answer. I do not rcmemhor that there was. As I have preciocely testifled. Ihad remarked. without having a definite idea myself. that I supposed all the eapenses incurred moaning my own expenses and the expenses of Mr. Stevenss party. and Colonel ibells party. and others. would amount to smine $12.000 or $15.000perhaps Question. I remember that you have stated that. Answer. Nothing was said. only this amount may have been mentioird. but I cannot say whether it was or not but that was the general idea of the matter. 2uestion. That was the general idea? neswer. Yes. sir. I carefully avoided. in this conversation with Mr. CanwELL. in regard to which IT m testifying now and will testify further. making myself a party to this transaction. I regarded Mr. CALDWELLS course as iighly dishonor. ablo and unti Uthful. SnestIon. In relerence to the postmaster? newer. Yes. oir and therefore I was very cautious in what be said to me in reference to the other matter. Question. Is that all you recollect of that conversation I Answer. Yes. sir. Question. When did you have the next one I Answer. I do not remember. In fact. Mr. CAcc)WELL. in these calls which Inad upon him in reference to the postmaster. mentioned the matter two or three tirs. that he had not fixed up the matter. bat was going to do it--chiefly in the form of apology. Qoestion. That is the post.sffices matter? Answer. No. sir. these other matters. And whenever I went to see him in reference to the postofie matter. lie seemed nxious to introduce the other matter. oa freq ent oceasions. I avoided it as much as possible. making the same general retl have already stated. Queetien. Yon say he said to you on several other occasions that he would do it I Answer. Yes. sir. that he would fix the matter up with Stevens. Question. Havs you had any other interviews with him on that subject ? Answer. Yes. sir. I wont to see him at his rooms. The interview that I dis. tinetly recollect. that made the meet impression on my mind. occurred at his room. I think on F street. somewhere near the Ebbitt Houss. if I remember aright. Question. When ? Answer. Whether it was in the spring. or at the session called to ratify the Ala. bama treaty. I cannot remnember. bct one or the other. I have located the plce wrongly. and I will ask to correct in regard to P street. What is the street passin the Arlington Hotel? Ihir. ANTHONY. That is H street.

S

Mr. CALDWELL

Unknown

CALDWELL

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

Now begin and state where your next conversation with him was in regard to thi matter. Answer. The next conversation I had with him was at his rooms on H street. near the Arlington Hotel. I had net hlim at the Capitol. and he remarked to me that he was going away and that he weuldI like to have me call and see him. -My recollection now is. since I hmv. commenced to make the statement. that the Senate had ajourned and lie was to leave for home. I called at his rooms end he was packing n) )his things. and I wsnt into his back room. whore he was engaged in packing his trunks. Me commenced a conversation with me in reference to this Stevens business and the agreement which lie had made with Stevens in reference to the payment of the expenses. and I replied to him in some general terms as I had before. being upon my guard. as I have said. and regarding the matter as an effort on his part to compromise me. He indulged in a good deal of conversation. apolegired for rot effecting the sattlemieet with Stevens. and said to me that the eletoen bad cost him $75.00) in money. and that he was very poor in ready money. Mark this language. I call the attention of the Senate to it. Mr. Clarke swears positively that he had this interview with Mr. CALDWELL on F street. but afterward be changes it to another street. in which Mr. CALDWELLsaid he would fix up this Stevens matter. that be would pay the money. and he goes on further in this eame conversation and speaks of the cost of the election. He states that Mr. CaLDWELL told him that his (CALDWELLS) election had cost him $75.000. The reason I call attention to this testimony is that 1 want now to refer you to other testimony of Mr. Clarke. Mark you. he says this conversation took place (in which the cost of Mr. CALDWELLS election was stated by him. and in which Mr. CALDWELL proposed to fix up these twelve or fifteen thousand dollars with him) at the session of the Semite. either in the spring or at the time of the ratification *of the Alabam treaty. which took place in May. 1871. Ie Ja1ary and February. 1872. the Kansas legislature investigated this matter at Topeka. On the 31st of January. 1872. Mr. Clarkethis honorable Mr. Sidney Clarkeafter Stating time and again. in the testimony before our committee. that he had conversed with Mr. CALDWELL. that h agreed to pay this amount. and that his election had cost him $75.000. testified before the Kansas committee as follows! uQuestion. Do you know whether or not. in that contest. any money or other value Ionsideratmis were offered or used by M. C Lm.L or his friends to secure votes for Mr. CAnWnrLLI Ans eor. I kIow it only as it was communicated to me by other persons. Qoestion. Well. sir. be whom were sueh facts commuiicated to yonI Answer. On the day foliowiog the election. just about as I was leaving the Tefft House at Topeka. to proceed to my home at Lawrence I Was met. I think in the hall. between tire room that I occupied and the eflice. by iour gentlemen. whose names. as near as I can recollet. are G. W. Wood. imember of the house of representatives from Cherokee. William Peckham. member of the house of representatives from Douglas Cointy. Mr. Ruer. from the Cherokee Neutral Lands. and hy lDr. OConnor. from Baxter Springs. One of these gentlemen I dont remember which. handed tome a owritten instrument. setting fortli in substance that Mr. G. V. Wood bad been offered a sum of nmoney to vote for Mr. CALDWEIn.. I think I had packed up my trunk to leave tle city. w s in a great hurry. remarked to the gentlemen thatl was asout leeving town. that it was a matter that I knew nothing about. and hoaded back the paper. Question. Did you receive such or similar information from any other persons I Answer. Yes. sir. Question. From what other persons I Answer. From Mr. T. L. Bond. member of the house of represontatives from Mfontgomery County. Question. Any other? Answer. I dont remember any other at this time. He states in his Kansas testimony. and reiterates it. that these parties. giving their names. told him that money was used . but he never iotimates there that Mr. CALDWELL said it cost him $75.000. or that

S

The CUAIRIAN

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

03121873.txt

had agreed with him to pay $15.000. or that Mr. CALDWELL had agreed with anybody for corrupt pirposes to pay this money. but he testifies before that committee that this is all he knows about it. and he gives the names. and now what follows I Of the very persons who were named by Mr. Clarke three were called on the witneessstand before our committee. and all three testified that they snever had any such conversation with this honorable Sidney Clarke. The fourth was not obtained. bat three out of the four swear positively that Mr. Clarke has sworn falsely in his statement. anud yet when Mr. Clarke comes charged before this committee with a letter in his pocket to prejudice the committee. with blood in his eye. against this man. and attempts to blackmail him. and there swears to every fact that he thinks can possibly convict him. yet before the Kansas legislature. long after he should have had these conversations with Mr. CALDWELL. lie denies that he knows anything about it. except what these men. naming them. have told him . and these men all come forward and say that he told a positive falsehood. This is the character of the testimony of the honorable Sidney Clarke. and this is the kind of testimony on which this Senator must be convictedtho testimony of a man who is contradicted by three men as honorable as be is. and when he himself swears contrary to what he swore before the Kansas legislature nfter those things had transpired and after these conversations should have occurred. Bat. forsooth. Mr. Clarke must bebelieved. Why? Because heswore against this accused Senator . but those men who swore in his favor have all committed perjury. Mr. Clarke is an honorable man! On pages 122 and 23 you will find that Mr. Clarke testifies. in answer to questions put by Mr. Trumbull. as follows: Question. This is for the purpose of furnishing the committee with means to get at the fact? Answer. Yes. sir. I have frequently had conversation with Major T. J. Andor. son. of the Xansas Pacific Railroad. in xefcrence to the subject. Question. Was he one of the persons you named as being present at the election I Answer. Yea. sir. Question. Was he the agent of thu road there at that time? Answer. Yes. sir. Question. He rdmao statements to you to the same offoet? Answer. Yes. oir. Question. That money had been imprsperly coed I Answer. Yes. sir . and that he had a personal knowledge of th matter and had acted in the capacity of disbursing money. There is Mr. Clarkes statement on pages 22 and 23. that Thomas J. Anderson. agent of the Kansas Pacific Railroad Company. was there at the time. told him that he used money. and that he was the agent for that purpose. Well. now. suppose we turn to Mr. Andersons statement. on page 71. and examine what he says for a few minutes: Qeestio. State. Mr. Anderson. to this committee what you know. if anything. in regard to the use of money or other corrupi means to procure votesfor Mr. CALeWELL for the Senate. oilier upon the part of Mr. CALUWI or any of his friends. Now listen to Mr. Anderson: Answer. I know of no money being used to purchase votes. directly or indirectly Question. You know of no money used? Answer. No money. I expended some money as the agent of the road in our own legislative scatters in dining and wining members. and soon. whichin usual. I believe. Question. You esay you know of no money being expended in connection with Mr. CALDwcLLs election in the way I speak of? Answer. No. sir. Question. I will ask if you were pressst at one time at an interview between r. Caron and Mr. Crcker. aS member of the legislature from Linn County 7 Answer. I was interviewed by Mr. Carson: Mr. Crocker I do not know. might possibly hove spoken to Mr. Crocker during the session. as I did to all the members. probably. at some time during the session. Personally I do net know him. and never had any conversation with hIm on that subject. This is Mr. Thomas J. Anderson. the agent of the railroad. who. the honorable Sidney Clarke swears. told him he was disbursing agent for Mr. CALDWELL and used money. positively swearing that he did not even know of any money being used. directly or indirectly. for such purpose.

S

Mr. CALDWELL

Unknown

CALDWELL

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

Allow me to ask a question.

S

Mr. MORTON

Unknown

MORTON

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

Certainly.

S

Mr. LOGAN

Unknown

LOGAN

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

I ask the Senator from Illinois if he did not agree in the committee with the rest of us that this man Andersons testimony was perjury throughout. and if he did not agree to the passage as put in the report to that effect. which was passed upon. but which I afterward struck out. as I thought it was harsh to put it into a report. that this muan Andersons testimony was perjury throughout. I ask my friend if he did not agree to that distinctly.

S

Mr. MORTON

Unknown

MORTON

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

Mr. President. this is the most peculiar way of prosecuting a man that I ever heard of. Has it come to this. that a Senator will stand in this chamber and demand what a man may have said out of doors. or anywhere else. in order to ruic a man who sits here ? What I have read is the evidence of a man who was testifying. and more than that. I will answer the Senator from Indiana. that Mr. Anderson bore himself more like a man than any person who was there pursuing Mr. CALDWELL. I say further. that Thomas J. Anderson. upon the stand. showed himself a cool. deliberate. selfpossessed. sensible man. and you cannot say that of your honorable Sidney Clarke. Now. I will say to my friend from Indiana. who is so indignant. and desires to lug in.trash and everything else that I would spurn the idea of trying to brin. forward against the character of a man. that this is the sworn testimony. and there was no witness to counradict him. and not a man could be put on the stand who would swear that he would not believe him under oath. But the Senators honorable friend. whom he dilated upon so profusely the other day. the mayor of Leavenworth. was contradicted and impeached by compotent testimony. a man who had been tried for murder. a man who had led a nob and tore up the railroad of that main whon he is persecuting. Yet -the Senator held him up before this Senate as an honorable gentleman. Sir. I say to the Senate that this testimony appears upon the record. and it impeaches the evidence of these honorable gentlemen. hence it wonld be a sort of fancy sketch for some of us to come in hero and say. Well. we did not believe him whon he swore that." How could yoe disbelieve him ? He was not impeached. he did not contradict himself. he did not act ii a manner to show that he was alarmed. he did sot exhibit any trepidation. he did not exhibit the signs of a man who was committing perjury. and no man will say that he did. but yet you want me to say he was a perjured man. That is exactly what I have refused to say. That is exactly what I refuse to say here today. I will not say that a man perjures himself unless the t6stimony shows him to be contradicted. and then I leave it for the Senate to judge as to whether his testimony is worthy of belief. But this witness contradicts the honorable Sidney Clarke. There is the sensitive point. His honor must not be attacked. The honor of a Senator may be trampled under foot. but you must preserve with especial sacredness the honor of the honorable Sidney Clarke! The honorable Sidney Clarke. on page 24. swears that Len. T. Smith said that they were bound to have this election if it cost them a quarter of a million dollars. This is said by this honorable exnIember of Congress. Now. who is Len. Smith? Is Len. Smith a disreputable man? Ho is a man who las always stood high in Kansas. he is a business man. He is a wealthy man. it is true. and my friend intimated the other day that this was the trial of a millionaire and therefore he must he convicted anyhow. I am free to conftss that Mr. Smith happens to be a man of some wealth and is considered an honorable man in Kansas. and a man of great business capacity. No man has ever inmpeached i is veracity. no man has over impeached his integrity. Even the honorable Governor Carney. in his testimony. swore that Le. Smith was an honorable man. but Sidney Clarke says he said he intended to have the election if it cost him $250.000. Now. let us see what Len. Smith said. Mr. Smith was recalted (on page 429) and questioned as follows: H ve you ever. ai any place. in csouvrsalon with Mr. OALWEtI.Mark. Mr. Clarke swore that this statement was made. not to him directly. but that Mr. Smith and Mr. CALDWELL said that they would have the election if it cost 6250.000. Now. Mr. Smith makes this statement: Question. Have yo ever. at any place. in conversation with Mr. CALDevLe and Governor Cr. . eaid in substanlce that you were bound to have the Senatorship. if it cost $50.000. or made any such remark I Answer. No. sir. I never made any such remark in the presence of any one. Question. Did you at the First National Bank at Leavenworth. or in Topeka? Answer. No. sir. He swears positively that he never made any such remark to this man or anybody else. and yet the honorable Mr. Clarke swears that he and Mr. CALDWELL said this. Mr. Len. Smith swears he did not sayit. Mr. CAnDWELL says that no such conversation ever occurred. There is the statenient of Mr. CALDWELL. the Senator. there is the statement of Mir. Leu. Smith sworn to. palpably contradicting the statement of Mr. Clarke in reference to this particular fact. As I said in the commencement of the examination of this testimony. every material fct sworn to by a witness against Mr. CALDWELL has been contradicted by from two to four witnesses of better reputation than the man who swore to it. Now. I want no call attention to another little fact in reference to the honorable Sidney Clarke. The honorable Sidney Clarke swears. on page 291. and Senators will see the animus of this gentleman: Question. Were you actively instrumental in bringing about the investigation that ocourred in Topeka in January. 18721 Answer. Well. sir. I have always bonn In favor of having this matter investigated by the legislature and the Senato. Question. You wore activoly promotin that object I Answer. Yes. 8ir. I published a card en the Topeka Comraneassnlth addressed to the peespie of Kansas. inviting. solfar as I was concened. the fullest and freest) investigation into the whole matter. Question. oi yea know Mr. Nathan Cree Answer Yes. sir. Questios. Did you fernisi him with a m .erandum Of the persons who had been boughe. or euppesed to have boon houghe. or whose votes had been bought. together w ith the nam es af p rso s by w herm that suld be provad Answer. I bed two or three conversations with Mr. Cres. u was then editor of t I tandaod. petlied to Lawrence. where I casid. I hd coaversations with him. In which I nrgod the p oprity oir listing itos.. tntuslouointtoetigaiod. anti spoke to him of some members of the legislature in reference te which testimony has been submitted hers . There Mr. Clarke testifies in reference to getting it up. bt. mark you. he says he spoke to Mr. Cree. the editor of a Lawrence paper. suggesting it to him. and Mr. Cree comes forward and swears positively that Mr. Clarke with his own hand wrote out a list of names. quite a number. and gave them to him to publish in li paper. stating the fact to be that they were all bribed. and he handed it to Mr. Cree to publish. and it was published. And yet Mr. Clarke. in his own testimony. cannot name a solitary man. but he himself was the man who- went to the newspaper editor aid gave the names and had the publication made. and had the charge first made in Kansas. that certain mn--uamning them. pointing them out on the journal giving the listwere bribed. Yet he is an honorable gentleman. and he must not be disputed! The facts show that this man was the promotor of the investigation. that he wasthe man who first made these charges . that after making the charges. and giving the names. and putting himself upon the record in the manner in which he did. he necessarily. in order to sustain his statement. must come forward and. when sworn. give at least some semblance of truth to what he had stated and published before the people of Kansas. Mr. President. let rue now call your attention to the sworn statement of Mr. Sidney Clarke before the Kansa legislature on this very same question. As I read the testimony. he went to Mr. Cree and gave him. in his own handwriting. the names of the members of the legislature who were bribed. and Mr. Creo published them in his paper. as Mr. Cree himself swears. Now let us see what Mr. Clarke swore before the Kansas legislature at Topeka. On page 297 of the Kansas investigation you find this: Question. Did you or did you not give said X. Cres names of several members of the legislatere of 1871. among which were the name of Senator Wood. as having voted corruptly in the senaorlial election of 18711 Answer. I gave him no list. but I talked with him about it as I would with any other person. This is what Mr. Clarke swear before the Kansas legislature shortly after this thing transpired. that he talked with Mr. Cree as he would with any other person and gave him no list of persons. and he comes before our committee and admits that he pointed out on the journal the names of members of the legislature. but Mr. Cree comes forward and swears that Mr. Clarke. with his own hand. wrote the naiies and gave hino the list. In a few weeks after the thing should have ocurred. and in the Topeka investigation. he swears he never did any such thing. and he comes here and repeats i . and this is the honorable Sidney Clarke. in whom there is no guile I We asked Mr. Sidney Clarke why he did not testify before the Kansas Topeka investigating committee the same as he testified before our committeethat Mr. CALDWELL told him it cost him $75.000and I will read you his answer to show why he did not tell it. On page 294 lie is asked by Mr. Crozier: Question. Before you testified ii that examinationSpeaking of the Topeka examinationwere you sworn to testify the truth. the whole troth. and nothing but the truth I A nswer. I dont remember the orm. I think that very similar. Question. Did yeu emit to state then that Mr. OxmLnwntEL had said to you that his electien hail cost line $75.000. for the reason that yoa considered Mr. Snoddy nnefair? Mr. Snoddy was chairman of the committee. a man who voted persistently against Mr. CALDWELL. Answer. That was partially the reason. but not entirely. Thu investigation at Topeka was conducted in such a way that the witnesses were refuse by Mr. Snoddy to be allowed to answer except such questions as he proposed to them. Now lie says tim reason why he did not testify at the Topeka investigation that Mr. CALDWELL told him he had paid $75.000. was that the investigation was unfair and Air. Snoddy did not allow him to answer any qcestions except such as Snoddy put him. Now lot me read the jnestfons in the Topeka investigation. and see how that is. Speaking about his information in regard to money and 6xponses: Quetien. Frem whom did you reoeive the information I k4 The question is a fair one. IlIe goes on and gives names. as heretofore. and finally he is asked: From any other person I And he answers: I do not remember any other person at this time. There is the answer. Being asked if he received information about expenses at the legislature from any person. he gives the names of a fow. Then he is asked. "From any other person ?" and he answers. "No. sir. Then he comes here and swears that the reason he did not tell it there was. that the investigation was unfair and the questions were not jout fairly. and he was only permitted to answer such questions as were asked. There he was asked the direct question and denied it. and yet this is his excuse. The next witness the Senator from Indiana relies uponand we only disagree so far as our theories are concerned about this testimony. he thinks one side of it is fairer than the other. and I am willing to take it altogether. the next witness that my friend relies onis a gentleman by the name of Spriggs. Mr. Spriggs was said by my friend to be a highly respectable gentleman. formely State treasurer of Kansas. a man that everybody believed. Now. whether everybody believes Mr. Spriggs or not. is a question for the Senate to determine when we get through his testimony. and I ask speeial attention to the testimony of this highly respectable gentleman. formerly State treasurer of Kansas. I do not think a man. becomes respectable merely bicanse he happens to have been treasurer of some State or of some county. I know it is not in the evidone. but perhaps I am about as well acquainted with the history of some of these gentlemen in Kansas as toy friend from Indiana. I live as close to where they are. and know about as inch in regard to them. as does my friend from Indiana. I happen to know that this respectablo treasurer of his. of whom lie thinks so much. was subjected to a very severe investigation of his conduot while he was treasurer in Kansas. and that he i not considered so highly estimable a gentleman there as the Senator would have him considered here. Still. that cuts no figure in the ease. Now let us take the testimony of this highly respectable gentleman. and put our estimate upon hint fromhis own sworn statements. Let us see what they are. I propose to examine Mr. Sprigg for a short while. and see how much weight he is entitled to. He is called and examined : Question. Where do you reside Answer. I reside at Gjarnett. Kansas. Question. Wore you at Topeka during the senatorial election which we are in. veotigatig? Answer. Yes. Sir. Question. In what epaaify and for what pupose were yon there I Answer. Well. 1 was a private citizen. I had ao oflieia capacity whatever. lie goes on and tells that ho went there a friend of Mr. Carney. In answer to the question "Were they friends of Mr. CALDWlELL or not ?" he says : Answer. I believe some of them voted for him afterward. Thv did not soy titre whether they wero friendly or unfriendly. After the had retired 1Mr. George Smith said that he was negotiating with these geetlemen for their votes and Mr. C. B. Butler. he said his house had a note of $BZO against Mr. Butler. Mr. Smit hald been a wholesale merchant in Leavenworth. and E said their hous hld a note of $850 on Mr. Butler. and he had to surrender that nets in order to get Mr. Butler to vote fur 11r. CaLDWELL. That is the testimony of Mr. Spriggs. He swears that Mr. George Smith told him that he. George Smith. had to release a note of $850 that his house. a mercantile firm in Leavenworth. hold against Mr. Butler in order to get Batlers vote. Whois George Smith l George Smith is now the treasurer of Leavenworth County. elected since this senatorial election. So there is one treasurer against another treasurer. What does George Smith swear? You will find by turning to his testimony. on page 330. that George Smith swears that he aevor had any such conversation with Mr. Spriggs. or with any other man. and that he never did. directly or indirectly. purchase. bribe. or attempt to purchase or bribe. a solitary member of the legislature of Kansas. and that Mr. Butler was never indebted to the firm. Then Mr. Butler is called. the man to whom Mr. Spriggs swears $850 was given to secure his vote for CALDWELL. Mr. Butler comes forward and swears that he never owed any such note. that be never owed the firm a cent. and that the whole thing is false. Mr. Spriggs. the honorable treasurer of Kansas. swears that George Smith. a reputable citizen. told him he was to give Butler a note for $850 which their firm held against him. and George Smith and Butler both come up and swear that no such note ever existed. and that no such conversation ever occurred. Senators. I ask you. as honest men. on the reputation given to Mr. Spriggs by my friend from Indiana. whether you are to believe that statement. and to believe that Butler was bribed by CALvDWELL for $850. when two honorable gentlemen swear that no such conversation over occurred. andthat no such note ever existed. In Godsname. Iask you. as honorable men. if yo are to be called upo to convict a man upon such statements as that by merely saying that the man who makes them has been treasurer of Kansas. and. therefore. must be a respectable man. That is all there is to it. He happened to be treasurer once. and therefore yon mnust believe him ! But that is not all of Mr. Spriggs. I am not through with him yet. You will find on page 48 of the testimony that Mr. Spriggs swears that a committee was organized at Topeka. consisting of "Governor Carney. Governor Osborn. Len. T. Smith. Frank Drenting. and mysolf"-that is his language. Then he was asked: Question. Was George Smith a member of it? Answer. No. sir. he was not a member of that conamittee. Qaetion. Did that committee have a meeting? Asor. V had one. two. or three meetings every flay. We had two rooms. Question. Did r. George Smith come to make a statement to you of these nogo. iatiens .was lie reporting to you as a member of the committee i Answer. No. sir. I do not suppose he was. I do not know why he caie to do it. Ile knew T -ses one of the committee. but it was not at the comaitteerooms. it was at the hotel he hal this conversation with me. Mr. Spriggs goes on and testifies that they organized a committee eonsisting otheso members: Air. Osborn. Mr. Curney. Len. T. Smith. 1rank Drcnning. and himself. and he testifies that that committee received rYiorts. that Mr. Len. T. Smith would report that such a mans vote was a little too high. but after awhile h would come down. that they could get hint for less. Now. I wish to call the attention of the Senate especially to this particular fact stated by this man Spriggs.

S

Mr. LOGAN

Unknown

LOGAN

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

I should like to inquire of the Senator. right in that connection. whether Spriggs was one of the committee that was operating to promote CALDWELLS election I

S

Mr. STEWART

Unknown

STEWART

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

That is the man.

S

Mr. LOGAN

Unknown

LOGAN

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

And he is another one that has turned states evidence .

S

Mr. STEWART

Unknown

STEWART

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

Yes. sir. I will state the facts. so that Senators can find them just as I state them. Mr. Spriggs swears. on.page 48. that Governor Carney. Governor Osborn. Len. T. Smith. Frank Drenning. and himself were a committee organized to promote CALDWELS election. and that reports were made to them as to the price of votes. and that is whose Mr. Spriggs got his information about this $850. that at this place this man. George Smith. told him of the fact. Let me call the attention of the Senate for one moment to the testimony of this honorable gentleman. Mr. Sprigges. My friend. the Senator from Indiana. wants you to believe. upon the testimony of Mr. Spriggs. that there was such a committee. Mr. Len. T. Smith comes forward and swears that there never was any such committee organized. Frank Drenning comes forward and swears that no such committee ever existed. Mr. CALDwELL states that no such committee ever existed. Every man who was called swears that no such thing ever occurred. and yet he is contradicted by every man he mentioned belonging to the committee. all of wbom swear that his statement was false. still the Senate is asked to believe that his statemeat is true. That is the eharacter of the testimony we have here. and that is the witness. I could tell the secret of this action of ir. Spriggs. but I will not do it.. It would be no testimony. But the idea that we shall be asked to condemn a man to everlasting infamy. to brand hins as Cainwas branded and marked to go oat before the earth to be scoffed at by everybody. that his children may be marked in after times by such testimony as was adduced before this committee against this unfortunate man. because he happened not to be so welt versed in the arts of men as others are! I say pause long before you perpetrate such an act as this. Why. sir. you could not. in any State. convict a man before a jury for the smallest offense. on such testimony as this. no matter whether his character was good or bad. There .is not a court on earth but would instruct the jury that the evidence was contlicting. and therefore of doubtful character. Mr. Spriggs also swears that T. J. Anderson -told him that he had given a thousand dollars for Br. Crockers vote for CsrDWnLL. What does Mr. Anderson say? Mr. Anderson was called ou the stad. and you will find his testimony commencing at the bottom of pam. 70. n page 71 you will find the following statement by him. to which I call the attention of the Senate: Question. State. Mr. Anderson. to this committee what you know. if anything. in regard to the use of noey or other corrupt means to procure votes for Mr. CAI.DWeRe for the Senate. either upon the part of Mr. CALDWELL or any of his friends. Aiiswer. I know of no looney being used to purchasevotes directlyor indirectly. Question. You know of no toney used? Atnswer. No money. I expended some money as the agent of the real i our own lgislative inai6tis. in dinteg and winig members. and so on. which is usual. I believe. I re ad that awhile ago. Right in this connection. before I go further. I desire to call attention to one point made the other day by my friend. the Senator from Indiana. He exhibited a great deal of anxiety about a ton thousand dollar check that was drawn by Mr. Anderson it favor of the attorney of the Kansas Pacific Railroad. Mr. Anderson states in his testimony that that money was drawn for taxes and for other purposes. but that not one dollar of it was used for the benefit of Mr. CALDWaL. Mit. Anderson does say that that road required legislation from that legislature. and that he used money in buying wine and in giving dinners to the members of the legislature and other people. That accounts for the money which my friend from Indiana thinks. ofcoarso. must havebeen usedfor CALDWELL. although there is not one scintilla of testimony to show that one dollar of it was ever used in his interest. If there is. I do not remomber it.

S

Mr. LOGAN

Unknown

LOGAN

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

Does my friend forget that Governor Carney testified positively that Len. T. Smith told him two days before the election that be hadj ust received $10.000 from the Kansas Pacific Railroal Company. and that ho was now in funds again. speaking of the conduct of the canvass? That is the positive testimony of Governor Carney.

S

Mr. MORTON

Unknown

MORTON

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

No. sir. I do not forget that Governor Carney swore that. neither do I forget that Len. Smith swore that Goveror Carney did not tell the truth.

S

Mr. LOGAN

Unknown

LOGAN

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

So far as Mr. Len. T. Smith is concerned. my friend. I presume. does.not forget that after we had examined him for two hours. and he had testified over and over again that he knew of but the use of $7.000 that had been paid to Mr. Carney himself. he dropped a remark which was seized ois by the committee. and being pressed upon it. he then revealed the $15.000 transaction. Right in the face of what lie had testified to a dozen times. that the $7.000 was all he know about. he revealed the $15.000 transaction. and remarked in his conifesin that he had not intended to tell about that if he could help it. and then went on to swear to a state of facts wholly inconsistent with the idea that Mr. Carney had got the $7.000.

S

Mr. MORTON

Unknown

MORTON

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

Well. Mr. President. I was not particularly discussing Mr. Carneys testimony. I shall discuss it. however. before I conclude. to the satisfaction of the Senator. for I propose to hold on to that for awhile.

S

Mr. LOGAN

Unknown

LOGAN

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

I should like to hear the Senator froni Illinois as to the value of the testimony of a witness who acknowledges that lie blackmailed a candidate for the Senate.

S

Mr. STEWART

Unknown

STEWART

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

It is no answer for the Senator from Indiana to got up here andi attack Mr. Len. Smith. I am talking about the testimony of two men compared together. and when ho speaks about the $10.000. I do say. and I defy contradiction. there is not one scintilla of testimony here that shows that one dollar of that money ever went to purchase a vote or to influence a vote in that legislature. Undoubtedly there is a fruitful imagination at work in this case that can fancy that money was used when there is no testimony whatever thAit was used. iust. as though you were to say that because at man draws money to(lay. he must necessarily use it for corrapt purposes. We are not required to come to a conclusion of that kind . we are not expected to do so pnless there is testimony upon which to base it. But I was speaking of Mr. Spriggss statement about Mr. Anderson having made this remark. and have shown you that Mr. Anderson says he never made any such statement. that he never used a dollar in the election. he knew of no money whatever b(ing used. and never said any such thing to Mr. Spriggs or to anybody ose. I am therefore putting Mr. Spriggs in opposition to other witnesses who have contradicted him. Now. when Mr. Spriggs is held up as being a very honorable man. why should not Mr. Anderson be held up a being equally honorable I I have said that I could reveal the secret workings of this thing from Mr. Spriggss own pen. but I refuse to do it. because it is not testimony. I did not know it in time. or I would have made it testimony. Mr. Anderson testifies as follows: Question. I will ask if yort were present at one time at an interview ibetween Mr. Carson and Mi. Croaor. a member of the legislature froin Liin County l Answer. I was iuterviowed by Mr. Carson. Mr. Crocker Ida not know. V isiglit possibly have spoken to Mr. Cracker (huring the session. as I lid to all the meueers. piobably. at soei time during the sesso. Personally I do not know him. and never hail any eoiversation with him on that subject. Question. Did yon melke mny arrangement with Mr. Carson by which lie was to piouro the vote of Air. Crocker for Mr. CALDWE1LL Answer. No. sir. Question. Yon stale that unqualifledly I Answer. I state it unqualifiedly end inost positively. Again Mr. Anderson was asked: Question. Do yau know Str. Spriggs I Answer. I do. Question. Dil ye over have a converation with hite in regard tonee money which was in Mr. Carsons hanls. which had been paid back to hi by Mr. Creeker I Answir. I think not. Question. Are you sure of it ? Answer. I am very positive. Abere is the language of Mr. Anderson. Spriggs swears further that Frank Drennirng had put $2.000 for votes In the treasury of a certain county in Kansas. Mr. Spriggs says he understood that to be so . that is to say. somebody told his aunt. and his aunt told her niece. and her niece told Mr. Spriggss nephew. and Mr. Spriggss nephw told Mr. Spriggs that Mr. Dreunlug bad placed $2.000 in the county treasury to pay for the votes of the members from his county. What does Mr. Drenning say. (page 373?) In the tirst place. silicn Mr. Drenrings attention was called to the fact. by the Senator from Indiana. that Mr. Spriggs swore that lie was a member of that committee. he testified as follows: Question. What do you know abont a committee of six in the interest of SMr. CALDWELiL there? Answer. Well. I didnt know there was any such thing asa committee. I didn know of any being a Toeka. That is the testimony of Mr. Drenuing. a mail who. Mr. Spriggs swears. was on the committee with him. Whatdoes Mr. Drenniug swear in reference to the $2.000 question ? Question. Did you ever tell Mr. Spriggs substantially this: tiat you had put money in the hands of thn tresasuror. or in the treasurythe old treasury of No. malia Contytwo thausand dollars. for the votes of members from that county? Answer. I never told Mr. Springs any such thing. Question. Or anything like it Acewor. No. sir i nor anything like it. to him or any other person. Mr. Spriggs testifies to conversations with four different men on that committee. and each one of those men comes here and swears positively that no such eommitteo existed. and each one positively swears that he never had any conversation with Spriggs in reference to the matter he mentions. but yet we must believe Mr. Spriggs and disbelieve all these oiter men I Why? Because if yoa believe these men and disbelieve Mr. Spriggs. the Senator from Kansas goes aquit . if you believe Mr. Spriggs and disbelieve five other mon. more henorablo than he. then the Senator must be convicted. The desire to convict somebody comes up with such great force now that we must have a victim. and inasmuch as possibly. by the lapse of time. one has escaped. we must have another. an. thorefore. testimony must be pressed to its utmost limit. it must be made strong when it is weak. and made weak when it is strong in his favor. Now. Mr. President. digressing for a moment before I go on with the testimony. it is true that we are so constituted that the winds waft us to and fro. and when the breeze is blowing in the direction of the overthrow of some individual we naturally tollow along in the gale. but I believe that the great God who made man loves men who have the courage to stand against this tempest of persecution. and who show their manhood by standing up for the right. that no man shall be destroyed unjustly by his fellowmon. if they can prevent it. So far as I am concerned. the tempest may bowl. hnt before I will lend my aid to the persecution of a man whom I do not believe to be legally guilty of any offense for whieh he can be punished. ns it is proposed to do hero. I will. if necessary. throw myself into the breach. even at the risk of suffering from the weapons of reproach. Now. returning to the line of argument. let us examine our friend Spriggs a little further. Mr. Drenning says Mr. Spriggs was mistaken. Of course Mr. Drenning does not say that Mr. Spriggs was willfully mistaken. but he was mistaken. no man can doubt that. Mr. Spriggs. further oil in his testimony. says that Len. T. Smith told him that he. Smith. said he offered Sears $2.500 for his vote. but could not give $5.000. Searss price was $5.000. but Smith told Spriggs he had offered him (Sears)$2.500. Mr. Smith comresforward and says (on page 42) that he never made any such statement to Mr. Spriggs. nor to any other living man . and that. if he had made such a statemeat. it would have been untrue. What does Mr. Sears say. the very man whom Spriggs swears Smith said he had this conversation with . and who is not implicated by being bribed. nobody pretending that the money was given to him? He comes forward and testifies as follows: Question. Do yon know Mr. Len. T. SmithI Answer. Yes. sir. Question.. What conversation. if any. did yen have In the senatorial canvass in regard to the selling of your vote. witi Mr. Smith Answer. I never interchanged a word witlh Mr. Smith during the etire senato. rial contest upon the subjectnothing except to interchago the ordinary courtesies of the day. There is tile testiniony of Len. T. Smith and the testimony of Mr. Sears.hoth positively and emphatically contradicting the testimiony of Mr. Spriggs. therefore I repeat that tke testimony of Mr. Clarke and of Mr. Spriggs. o every material point that they testify to. has been disputed by from two to four witnesses of better character tian themselves. Let us go further with Mr. Spriggss testimony. He testifies that on Tuesday. precisely one week prior to the election ia Topeka. he had a cenversatio with Mr1". CALDWrLL in Mr. CALDnLras own room. That lie went to see Mr. CrnawrLr.. and Mr. CALDWLLtod him that if he found any voters who wanted bo sell their votes he should refer them to Len. mnitl. btthat if lie should find a gentleman who would not sell his vete. bt would take money for his expenses. to send him either to him (CALDWELL) or Len. T. Smith. Now. sir. mark this fact: Mr.. Spriggs was asked the question. "Are yo certain as to tie tin e?" lie replied. " If you will tell me when the election took place. then I will tell you the exact day." We thn told him that the eleetion took place on [uesday the 24th. Said he. " Then I know positively that it was the Tuesday prior to the election." He stated that positively afteor fixing the time of the election. Now. sir. we have the testimony of three witnessesthe testimony of Lon. T. Smith. the tcstiutony oi Mr. Legate. and the testinmony of Dr. Thomasas to im whereabouts of Mr. CALDWELL at that time. Mr. Spriggs. after we had told him that tih election was on Tuesday the 24th. said. "Tihen fain positive that this was on the Tuesday prior to the election" Hence lhe fixed it on that day. which was the 17th of the month. Mr. Smith swears that Mr. CA LDWIiI.L left Topokaon the lth. aind renainod in Leavenworth until the night of the l9th. Air. Legato says that Mr. CAc.DWnlr.e left Topeka on the 13th. and remained there until the night of the 18th. and came to Topeka oia the two oclock train oni the night of the 1Sth. What does Dr. Thomas swear? Quenstion. Dr. Thomas. where do you reside W Answer. In Leavenworth City. Question. What is your business I Answer. lain a practicing physician and surgeon. Question. D3o yo know Mr. CALnWLL I Answer. Yes. siri very well. %uetion. Do you know where Mr. CALDWeL wee on the 17th January. 187l? Answer. lie was in his sickchamber . sick. Question. WIhera I Answer. At his residence. Question. Wyhere ? Answer. In Leavenworth. Qaition. You any he was in his slckchambtr I nower. Yes. sir. at his residence in Leavenworth. Question. flaw lengbefore and after January 17. 1871. was he atn haoe Answer. Mr. CAmDWELL wnsat home--

S

Mr. LOGAN

Unknown

LOGAN

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

kirst. what day did the ballot take placol Mr. OAe)Vetr. On Tuesday. the 24th. IBy Mr. Croza Queolion. flow long preceding the 17th and subsequently thereto was Mr. CAL. WiLL in Leavenworthl Answer. To the best of my knowledge. from Satnrday. 17th. to tis following Monday. inclusive. He was in his sickehamber at his resideneo in Leavonwurt h. Qusatien. Wero you in his sinkehaiiber on the 18th? Answer. I wivn. Quostion. -Vas he these Answer. Ito was there. He testifies that he prescribed for Mr. CALDWELL on that very day. and that that night he (CAIDWLa) left for Topeka. There isnotone scintilla of that testimony of Mr. Spriggs from beginning to end. that is material to this question. that has not been contradicted by the best character of evidence. So that this conversation between Mr. Spriggs and Mr. CALDWELL in whiele Spriggs swears that Mr. CALDWELL told him that if he (Spriggs) found men who wanted to sell their votes. to send them to him. (CALDWELL.) could not have taken place. it is not true in point of fact. It was an impossibility. because Mr. CALDWELL was in Leavenworth at the very moment that this man swears positively that he had this conversatian with him in his room at Topeka. Now. Mr. President. we come to testimony that is.very reliablethe testimony of a gentleman by the name of Carson. Perhaps you recollect him. My friend from Indiana thinks that a certain man by the name of Crocker was bribed because a man by the name of Carson testified that he got a thousand dollars. Let us seewho Mr. Carson is. My friend. the Senator from Indiana. said to me the other day I did not believe some of these people. and that I must believe the statement of witnesses on their side. I am not going to ask my friend from indiana if he believed Mr. Carson. I do not propose to defend this case is any such way as that. I do not think that is the legitimate way to argue the caseto ask somebody what lie believes about this man or that. but let us have the facts. Mr. Carson says he was once a merchant. that he went up to Topeka. bet that he did not have any particular business there. l1e was a good deal like a man who was once indicted for counterfeiting. The prosecution did not prove anything against him. but called up one of his neighbors. and asked bin if lie knew the character of the man. He said. cortainly he did. "What is his occupationIl "Well." said he. "I do not know exactly. lie is generally hammering around in the countryY1 "What dto you mean by hammering around?" " Well. passing a few dollars of counterfeit money. and things of that sort.i I do not know anything about Mr. Carson or about what his occupation is. neither do think any of the committee can tell from the testimony what it is. nor do I think anybody else can. except that every witness who was asked about him said he would not trust him with a penny. and weld not believe anything he would say. This man Carson swears that he went to Judge Crozier and asked Judge Crozier if ho could sell thirteen votes. The judge told him that that was a matter he did not know anything about. he did not have anything to do with that kind of business. "Well." said he. "judge. if I had votes to sell. and if I was to sell them. could I take a receipt for them if I sold them V" This is the witness who comes here to prove that Mr. CALDW ELL is a dishonest man ! Carson testifies that Mr. Anderson paid Mr. Crocker a thousand dollars for his vote. but that after lie paid Crocker the thousand dollars he would not vote for CALOWELL and that after Crocker failed to vote for CALDWELL. Anderson told him to got the money back. Carson says he went to Crocker and made him pay back the money. We asked Carson. "What did you do with the money?" He said. "I kept it. I thought I was entitled to that myself." Now. what is the truth about it? Mr. Anderson comes forward and swears that he would not trust Carson with a penny. and there was not a witness on the stand who would have trusted him with a cent. Mr. Ariderson swears that he never had any conversation with bim on the subject. that the statement is wholly and totally false. Mr. Crocker. who was not in the State. hearing of the fact. publishes a card in which he denies the whole trasaction. and asserts that the charge is false and villainously so. and Mr. Snoddy. another member whom this man mentionedwho was. I think. president of the senate. who opposed Mr. CALDWESLI. and did not vote for him. bet was a candidate himself. though he received very few votesasserts that it is totally and wholly false. What else do we know about this man Carsonone of these honerable gentlemen who is persecuting Mr. CALDWEL? le came here to Washington. I think. about a year ago. as his own testimony shows. stopping at a hotel in this city. A highly respectable gentleman fron Kansas by the name of Captain Insley was also hero at the same time. This man Carson. while here at that time. drew sp an affidavit. in which he charged Mr. CALDWELL with having procured Crockers vote for $1.000--the same charge ho makes in his testimony. He did not swear to the affidavit. hut went to Mr. Insley. a friend of Mr. CALDWELL. showed the affidavit to him. made him read it. and told him that he would publish that affidavit on CALDWELL Unless CALDWELL paid him money. and requested Insley to go and tell CALDWELL so. Insley did tell CALDWnre so. and Mr. CArLwsaLas reply to Mr. Insloy was. "Tell him to publish it if he wants to. it is a lie." This shows the character of this witness. He came here a year ago and undertook to blackmail Mr. CALDWELL. by threatening to publish an affidavit. and ater Mr. CALDWELL told Mr. Insley that he would have nothing to do with Carson. that he had never seen him and did not know him. and could not point him out. yet. this inan. having failed to blackmail Mr. CALDWELL. failed to get money from him. told Mr. Insley that if he could not get money to pay his hotel bill he would "out on that." as he called it. and go home without paying it. This is one of the witnesses brought here to persecute an I prosecute men in this Senatechamber. This is the kind of evidence we have here in this case. and the published testimony states every fact precisely as I have stated it. The next witness who comes forward against Mr. CALDWELL 1 another highly respectable gentleman. My friend. the Senator from Indiana. said the other day in his remarks that no man who heard the testimony could fail to believe old man ChOster Thomas. 0. he was a saintly creature! He comes forward. and what does he testify ? He admits that he offered to buy the vote of a Mr. Steele for $1.000. but at the same time he admits that he had no authority from anybody to make the offer. He admits that he did not have the money to give. and that he had never talked with anybody on the subject. We asked him why he made the offer. He said because he wanted to defeat Mr. Clarke. and he was willing to make any kind of pronise to get a vote. This is the kind of bribery Mr. CALDWELL is guilty of. A man outside. that Mr. CAxrnweLL knew nothing whatever about. goes to a member. as he says. and offers him $1.000 for his vote. The member refused it. denounced him. and would have nothing to do with the offer. and Thomas swears he had no authority to make the offer and did not have any money to give. But who is our friend Thomas ? We have read of a man by the name of Thomas who was a doubting man. This may not be a doubting man. but he is certainly a doubtful man. I dislike to sty these things. because the witnesses on the other side are all honorable gentlemen. but unfortnately Mr. Thomas was arrested by General Sleridan for stealing cattle in Texas. (I say nothing but what the record will bear ino out in.) He sued General Sheridan for False imprisonment. The case was tried in Topeka. and General Sheridan proved the charge. and Thomas failed to get a cent for false imprisonment. General Sheridan proved that he had authority for and was justified in arresting Thomas. hence the general was excused. That is the honorable Mr. Thomas! That is the character of the men who come here to put down a Senator. and that is the character of testimony that Senators rely upon in order to destroy their fellowSenators! The next testimony that my friend from Indiana relies upon is the statementin regardto some checks that were given. Resays thatDr. Morris drew s chek on his own bank for $5.000. That is true. There was testimony that Dr. Morris drew a check for $5.000. Dr. Morris was at Topeka. and my friend from Indiana says that Dr. Morris was a friend to Mr. CALDWELL. That is also true. Is it to be presuned that

S

The CHAIiMAN

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

03121873.txt

friends do not engage in businsess the same as other people? Does my friend from Indiana traco a dollar of that $G.000 to anybody ? Does he show that a dollar of it was ever expended in this election ? Does he show that a dollar of it ever went into the hands of any member? Dr. Morris drew a check on his own bank for 85.000. and that is all we know about it. and that is all there is about it. He bad a right to draw it. and what hodid with the money nobody knows. He is a business man. and is it such an unusual thing. for a rnan engaged in business to draw a cheek on his own bank? Are we to presume that every time a man draws a cheek. he uses the money for corrupt purposes? If the presumption is that every time a memher of Congress draws a check in the city of Washington. he Uses the money for corrupt purposes. each one of us might he indicted. and tried for it. too. But the presumption is that a man is innocent. there is no presumption that lie is going to commit a crime because of the fact that he draws a check. That proves nothing in the world. except that ha drew that money. That is all you can make of it. and that is all there is to it. Bit my friend argues that Mr. CALDWELL drew a cheek on some friend of his for $10.000. that there were some $40.000 passed back and forth. and he cannot tell anything about it. nor could anybody else. but because cheeks were drawn. therefore the money was used for corrupt purposes l My friend knows that in the examination of the bankbooks from Leavenworth the evidence shows that there was nothing extraordinary in the use of checks during that month. either in Mr. Len. T. Smiths account or in Mr. CALDWELLs account. Would it not be fair for him to say that? Why is it that you take the account of a ian for a month and show he used a large amount of money. and do not take the account for the preceding month. or the succeeding month ? The evidence shows that Mr. CAIDWELL Was largely engaged in railroading. in building a railroad. and that he had money deposited in rhiladelphia. and at times drew upon Jay Cooke & Co.. and at times upon other banks. sometimes one bank and then another. in order to prosecute his business. and the books show. and the testimony shows. that there was nothing irregular. nothing to create surprise or astonishment. in the amount of drafts drawn during that month . that it was merely in the ordinary courso of business ancording to regular bank account. and yet there is a great deal made out of that. Tou might as well say to me. "Why. LOGAN. you drew $40.000 this moanth. what have you done with it? You must have used it for some corrupt purpose." You do not ask how much was required for my business. you do not state that last mouth I drew $40.000 aso. For what ? To prosecute my business. Is there anything extraordinary. then.iuthis months drafts on the bank I That was just the condition of the business of Mr. CALDWELL. it was just the condition of Mr. Len. T. Smiths business. and Mr. Len. i. Smiths checks drawn at Topeka duriug that month were small in comparison with what they were the month before. as the books show. and yet we are asked to believe that it was all corrupt. Ye can drive any man out of this Senatechamber if you will take that uaraotcr of teetimony..if you charge him with an improper use of money this month on account of. the amount of hisdrafts. although he uses no more than he ordinarily does in his business transactions. That seems to be a strangeway of prosecuting mei. The evidence showed that Mr. CALDWELL Was largely engaged in business. and bad been for years. that his deposits were large. and had been for years. that his drafts were large. and had been for years. Because he happened to be elected to the Senate. his business did not stop. but went on that. month the same as any other month. and yet we are asked to say that the money which was used in his business that month must have been used for corrupt purposes. That is a strange process of reasoning. to me. I cannot understand it. It is not a process of reasoning that strikes my mind with a great deal of force. and yet it appears to have made a deep impression on some other minds. Having spoken until three oclock without concluding.

S

Mr. C LDWELLs

C

LDWELLS

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

The Senator from Illinois gives way that I may move that the Senate proceed to the coasideration of executive business.

S

Mr. STEWART

Unknown

STEWART

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

I desire to say something to the Senate on this question. and I am obliged to leave here this evening at forty minutes past five to fulfill an engagement. and unless there is something particularly requiring an executive session. I should like to proceed now.

S

Mr. STOCKTON

Unknown

STOCKTON

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

Does the Senator from Nevada withdraw his motion for the present 7

S

The PRESIDENT pro tempore

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

03121873.txt

The Senator from Illinois is not through with his speech. and will not be for some time.

S

Mr. STEWART

Unknown

STEWART

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

I suggest that the Senator from New Jersey be allowed to go on now. and that the Senator from Illinois be permitted to conclude his speech tomorrow morning. if le desires to do so.

S

Mr. MORTON

Unknown

MORTON

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

pro teapore. The Senator from Indiana suggests that the Senator from New Jersey be allowed to proceed now. and that the Senator from Illicois conclude his remarks tomorrow morniUtir. LOGAN. I have no objection to that.

S

The PRESIDENT

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

03121873.txt

I would not ask that. Ihad no idea of interfering with the Senator from Illinois.

S

Mr. STOCKTON

Unknown

STOCKTON

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

The Chair understands that the Senatorfron Illinois is quite willingto suspend his remarksatthis point.

S

The PRESiDENTprotempore

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

03121873.txt

I am perfectly willing to give way to the Senator froi New Jersey. ifI am to be permitted to have the floor tomorrow morning.

S

Mr. LOGAN

Unknown

LOGAN

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

Before the Senator friom New Jersey proceeds. I ask leave to offer the following resolution: lResolved. That the Committee on the Judiciary be instructed to inquire and roport. at the next December session of the Senate. whether the Union Pacifie Railroad Company. or cay company authorized to boild a branch road to connect therewith. or any asiguee of sch company will be entitled to lands or beads for any road which such compay may hereafter construct. aod that until sald coomittes shall report. the execu tive officers of tho Governamest are roquested to issue no bonds or patent certificates that may be claimed for roads constructed and reported after this date. The resolution was considered by unanimous consent and agreed to.

S

Mr. CONKLING

Unknown

CONKLING

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

Mr. President. it being perfectly understood that I proceed by the acquiescence and the desire of the Senator froit Illinois. it wilt give me great pleasure to present to the Senate the few legal propositions that I desire to presest in this ease. I have nothing to sayS in reference to the facts of the case. save this: that volume of testimony is of no earthly use except. perhaps. to show to the country the condition of things that exists in some of our States in reference to the election of Senators. So far as this question is concorned. in the limited view that I take of it. so far as it comes before us as judges. all the evidence in the case has no bearing at all upon thejudgment which we are called upou to give. It may not be inappropriate to say that no graver case was ever presented to the Senate of the United States. It is .a question that involves the very foundations of our Government. It is a question. the proper decision of which may be more important to us and our posterity than any question that has come before Congress for years. am not in favor. and never have been. of obliterating all the landmarks of our fathers. and I know there are gentlemen in this chamber. and on the other side of the chamber. who feel as I do. that the time has come to stop. to pause. and look well. before. for any party purpose (which I do not charge in this ease) or amy other purpose. we broak down any more of the landmarks which our fathers set up to protect the people in their rights and the States in theirs. In this report I find the following: It is testified by Mr. Lon. T. Smith. a former business partner of Mr. CaLWaLt. his active riend at the time of his eloetioa arnd during this iovestigation. that he mote na agreeTnOnt with Thomas Carney. of Leavenworth. by which. in consideration that Mr. Carnay shoald not le a candidate for United States Senator before the legislature of Kansas. and should gie his influence ond supqort far Hr. CALDWLL. Mr. 0ALDWLL should pay him the sum of $15.000. for which amount notes were given. and afterward paid. I find. turning to another page: The testimony of Mr. Spriggs is very full. cnd shows that the canvass of Mr. CALDWEiL was thoroughly orrupt. and that money was the ehief argument roled nllsoim. I think that that muehof thetestimony is all that I need to refer to. those two points cover the whole ground. I take it. the whole mss of this testimony is idle and worthless. If I can demur to those two points. if my duty as a judge obliges me to demur to these propositions. I cannot permit myself to examine the tesmony further before coming to a decision. if. in other words the Senate of the United Statsmo. who. we are told. are the judges of the qualifications. eleetions. tnd returns of their members. have no cognizanceo of this case. if the testimony be all true. then I think it were better not to waste more time in examining this testimony. Mr. President. the views that I am submitting are presented hastily and without preparation. for I did not expect to be in the Senate today. but still they are not crude thoughts. although the language be so. Cireunistances have occurred in my life which have made it my duty to examine these questions before. and my views of the constitutional points involved are not hastily formed. although they may be crudely expressed. The Constitution says: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State. chssent by the legislature thereof for six years. I beg leave to ask the attention of the Senate to that word "chosen" selected. elected. ehigere. chosen. the wish manifested. the choice of the legislatures of the States. That is where the power exists. and no man can ever take his seat honestly in this body. and no man can sit in this body. unless he is the choice. the wish of the legislature of his State. The first question that comes up. therefore. in every one of these cases is. is it the legislature of the State and the next question is. did they chooser and further than that there is no question. and there never has been a question. In all the great debates that have taken place on iiatters of this kind. on this provision of the Constitution. arguments mads by the ablest men that this country has produeed(. in which Mr. Bayard. and Mr. Clay. and Mr. Badger took part. the question always was this. and this only. was it the logislature. and did they choose? and there never was any other quesliou. As to the matter of qualification. of course the reasons which disqualify a man. being given in the Constitution. wore always plain and simple questions of age and citizenship. It so happens that in this case we have no doubt that it was the le islature that elected. That position is not controverted. Mr. Harlans case the majority of the two houses were gathered together without such resolutions as the State legislature required to bring them into joint meeting. They voted and elected Mr. Harlan. .od he was unseated. Why? Because the Senate held that it was nothing but a nob. that where two bodies were required to act separately. and then to join. they must do that act as prescribed . that their meeting together as individuals. no matter if the time and place were such as were required. did not make them the legislature. In the case that occurred from New Jersey. where the majority committed the power to a plurality to decide who should be the Senator. after a long discussion. after great debate. in a time of great political excitement. it was held that the majority cotld not pcrnit the plurality to decide. because they must have the legislature there. These examples are sufficient for me to show you that the question in these cases always has been. was it the legislature ? That question. I say. happily does not embarrass us in this case. It was doubted in early times whether these elections could take place as other than legislative actswhether they could be made in joint meeting at all. rhe earliest commentators and the last commentators say that. if it were not for precedent to the contrary. it would even now be held that these elections should take place as legislative acts. that authority alone justifies an election in joint meeting. An examination of the customs of the diferoent States shows that the manner of eleetion was almost as varied as the number of the States themselves. Why was tiis I Because Congress had power to prescribe the time and mainer of holding elections for Senators and Representatives. but. in the absence of any prescription by Congress. each State was left to prescribo for itself. The method of electing members tothe Continental Congress in my own State was the method by which I was elected when I was first sent to the Senate. The two houses assembled in joint meeting. and every joint meeting made its own rules for its own government. for the elections to be made by it. Congress. however. has since proscribed. as it was authorized by the Constitution to do. the time and manner of electing Senators. but until Congress did so proscribe. each State had a right to prescribe for itself. and the Senate could judge only whether the election had been according to the manner prescribed by the State. The Senate are not judges of the election. in the broad sonse of the term. They never were made judges of the election in the sense contended for. There is no sneh power given to the Sciato by the Constitution. They are judges of the time and the manner of the election . bet when a loan comes here with credentils from a State. if they are in form. the rule in old times was universal. to receive on the primafaee evidence presented by his credentials. When. however. after the civil war. we adopted a now rule. when the relations of States became uncertain. when. to use the phrase of the Senator from Indiana. "we began to deal with States ." whet the qnestion arose as to whether States were in the Union or out of the Union. we beg.an to refer credentials to coinmittees. Now. yo remember. we have prescribed by statute what the credentials are. On those credentials coming here. unless there is somethitg to oppose the primafacts case. unless there is something to show accroding to the modern doctrine that the State sending the member hero is not i n a healthy condition . or unless there is a charge of fraud on the face of the credentials themselves. the gentleman prosenting them is admitted. of course. Then. how much further can we go? The time and the manner may be prescribed by the States in the absence of prescription by Congress. but both are now prescribed by Congress. That which Congress could do. that which the States did do before Congress acted. that is the power and the sole control that this body has over the clection. the sole subject of their judgment as julges of it. M r. MORTON. Will the Senator allow me to ask him a question

S

Mr. STOCKTON

Unknown

STOCKTON

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

Certainly.

S

Mr. STOCKTON

Unknown

STOCKTON

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

I understood the Senator to say that the Senate was not the j edge of the election.

S

Mr. MORTON

Unknown

MORTON

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

I an coming right to that point I will answer any inquiry that the Senator desires to put with great pleasure. but this question is the very point I am now conng to naturally in the course of my remarks.

S

Mr. STOCKTON

Unknown

STOCKTON

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

I only wish to know whether I understood the Senator correctly or not.

S

Mr. MORTON

Unknown

MORTON

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

That is the view I intend to present to the Senate. I stated it as broadly as I could. with the object of attracting the attention of Che Senator from Indiana and other Senators to the proposition. I stated it as broadly as it can be stated. and if the very words may not lie strictly correctif too broadly statedI am glad that its broadth has called aLteution to the view which I anl trying to impress upon the Senate. to the fact that it is the manner and form of election alone which the Senate can consider. of which they are judges. It will be recollected that. by section 3 of Article I. "the Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State.. chosen by the legislatitroheref"-thtt is. elected by the legislature. and section 4 of the same article provides that "the times. places. and maner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof. but the Congross may at any time by law make or alter such regulations. except as to the place of choosiug Senators." and then. immediately after that. comes the clause. " Each House shall be the judge of the elections. returns. and qualifications of its own members." I know very welt that the power of dealing with States has been stretched to a great extent under that clause of the Constitution which guarantees to each State a republican form of government. At the tinle the Constitution was adopted that phrase. "republican form of governneit." meant nothing whatever except that the Government should not be monarchical. and yet that clause has been used to tcret thhat wor." repubhican " to do anything yolu pleased in the Southern States. Tiers is the word "elections." T1le Sonatfor asks me whether I insist that we are not the judges of the elections of Senators. I say I do. The language is. "Each Rouse shall be the judge of the elections. returns. and quaideations of its own nlembers." The Senator is too good a lawyer to believe or to insist that lie can take that single word "election " out of its connection. deprive it of the control which the first clause has over it. which says that the Senator shall be chooen by the legislature. nif deprive it of the control over it of the clause immediately preceding. which says that "the times. places. and manner of holding elections Ibr Senators shall be prescribed in each State bythe legislature thereof. but the Congress may. at any time. by law. make or alter such regulations. except as to the place of choosing Senators." Do not both these clauses control the power you have over the elections? How can the sovereign legislature of a State choose a Senator to be their representative here. if you at any momnent. under the plea that you are the judges of the election. determine whether he is a proper person to be here ? No. sir. onl this pretense you may turn a man out tomorrow because he is a Roman Catholic. and the next day turn a man out because he is a Methodist. and the next day turn him out beeauschois disloyal. The word "choice" absolutely expresses the free will and expression of desire on the part of the legislature of the State. That the words "chosen" ant "elected" are used in the Constitution as synonyms is manifest from other clauses in the Constitution: "Who shall not when elected be an inhabitant of the State for which le shall be chosen." "The Senate shall choose their other officors. and also a prosidentpro lciporc." "Each House shall be the judge of the elections. returns. ant qualifications of its own members." "No Senator or Representative shall. dluring the timie for which he was elected.". The 1ouse of Representatives shall be composed of niembers "1chosen " every secoind year. No person shall he a Representative wie shall net. wvhene " elected." ho an inhabitant of the State luwbich he Shall tie "etescumt." The Htouse of Representatives shalt "1 choose" their Speaker. They mean no more. they can mean no less. and when yoU coie to this clatso. controlled by the two others. separating it from its context. and insisting that you are the judges of the eection. and can go into details amd inquire into the motives of the ienmbers who voted in the legislature. you destroy this frame of government beyond all question. Let this power be established. and the Goverunsent of our fathers exists no longer. the States are no longer represented. and. therefore. I say that if I have. by the bluntness of my proposition. called the attention of Senators to it. I have done well. We are not the judges of the election . it is not our business to inquire whether Mr. Carney was bought off for $15.000. it is not our business to inquire whether this gentleman corrupted the legislature of his State. The cases maintain this position. I know of no case that does mot maintain it. and I think I have examined them all.

S

Mr. STOCKTON

Unknown

STOCKTON

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

Will the Senator allow me to ask him a question F

S

Mr. MORTON

Unknown

MORTON

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

Certainly.

S

Mr. STOCKTON

Unknown

STOCKTON

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

The Constitution provides that each House shall be the judge of the elections. returns. and qualifications of its own members. Here are three distinct matters in regard to which each House is tojudge: lirst. whether the ieber returned has the qualiflications required by the Censtitutioi . scond. wvhether the returns of the election are legal or in proper form. showing that ho was elected by the proper legislature on the 1tco of the returns. and. third. to judge of the election. Now. I want to know fron the Senator front New Jersey what power is given to the Senate tojudge of the election according to his view. aside front the other powers under the heads of qualifications and returns.

S

Mr. MORTON

Unknown

MORTON

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

I will answer the Senator again if he desires it. I have answered him. I think. in what I have already said. but I am still obliged to him for the question. The Senate have the power in the first place to examine the constitution of the State of Kansas ail see if the body which sent this gentleman hero was the legislature of Kansas. as the Senate did in Harlans case. They have the pourer. as they did in the case from Now Jersey. (against the righteousness of which decision I enter my solemn protest.) to examine whether there was a majority vote or whether a majority vote was required. and in that case they not only did examine ib. but in all that long discussion there never was a person who doubted tile authority of the Senate. uinder their power to examine into the "mianner" of the election. to decide whether the 1manner" pursued was a proper one. The manner unprescribed by rule is the manner prescribed by parliamentary ltw. which Mr.Cushing says is the mejority vote. but as lie says also. the majority may provide that a less number or a greater numher may determine aiy question. as when twothirds are required and nado necessary to do any particular act. The legislatore of Kansas might have seit out a committee and pdedged themselves by a majority that the report of that eommittee should be adopted and that whoever that committce lmight roporb should be elected.

S

Mr. STOCKTON

Unknown

STOCKTON

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

If an interruption does not trouble my friend. I wish to call his attention to the fast that the power which he says the Senate may exercise in regard to the title of a member to his scat comes under the head of the return entirely. The power to judge of the return includes. of course. whether he has been elected by the legislature of the State. That is a distinct branch of inquiry. and so is the matter of qualitiation. but. in addition to those heads. we have the power also to examine as to the election. and I submit to my friend that if he reads the history of that clause as it went into the Constitution. it was intended to vest each House of Congross with the same power to examine into questions of election that the House of Commions had under the English eonsttution.

S

Mr. MORTON

Unknown

MORTON

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

I am afraid my learned and distinguished friend fron Indiana is like anothorperson whom too much learning made mal. If he would leave the English House of Commons and the English parliamentary law. and be gaverned by our own Constitution and the theory of our Government. I think he would be better able to arrive at a correct conclusion as to this question. I say most distinctly that the point I am now inquiring into has nothing whatever to do with the .shies. and I can hardly see how a gentleman of the SenatOrs acute intellect and power of refining can fail to see the distinction between a. return. which is nothig but the evidence of election. coming from the governor as the evidence of a Senators title to his scat. and the election itself. which is the free choice of the legislature properly spoken. Mr. President. must I go back to elementary principles of parliamentary law and say to you that the voice of that body when spoken in the manner prescribed by that body is the voice of all.*of every individual member I When a vote is taken hero ilceine contradicente. it is the voice of every member of this body. When a vote is taken which requires twothirds. and those twothirds are obtained. the result is the vote of all. It is so declared by parliamentary law. When you got a majority it is the vote of all. When aminoity are enabled to determine by a preordained role. that result is the vote of. all. The standing committees of the Senate are required by the rules of th Senate to be voted for by ballot. and yet since I have been a Tenber of the Senate there has never been a veto by ballot on any one occasion. but the result is the vote of all. and that. as Mr. Cushing says. is the voice of the body. So we speak. and so the legislature of Kansas speaks. and so alone can it speak. In larlanlg ease the two bodies composing the Iowa legislature assembled as a mob. and although there was a majority of the whole number of members present. they could not speak because they had no tongue. The legislature has but o1 tongue. and that is its own rules. The manner of the election may be controlled by Congress. bet when Congress does not control the manner. each State does for itself. The manner includes the number of votes and the method of organizing. Now. as Congress has prescribed the mannhr. the election must be in accordance with the law of Congress. which matter is not here made at all a question. When the legislature speaks in accordance with the law in the manner prescribed by the law. it speaks absolutoverity and truth. and you have no right to hear any other voice on that subject. The legislature of the State of Kansas are to choose the Senator. They have a right to a free choice. No other power has anythiig to say in their election. I say. too. to the Senator from Indiana that they have but one way to let us know what their choice is. and that is by the credentials they send hero. When an attempt is made to go behind the credentials on the ground of fraud. this additional fact must he shown. that there was not an election. there was no choice. because if there was not an election. if there was no ehoice. the credentials were a fraud. The words. as I have said before. are synonymous. The clause of the Constitution which lodges in the logisltnro the power to choose. winds up with the declaration that each House shall be the judge of the elections. returns. and qualilicatioiis of its members. The words "choose" and " election" are used as synonyms. Unless. therefore. yon can establish by evidence that the legislature of Kansas did not choose Mr. CALDWELL. you are logically compelled to say that there is no case presented to the Senate for action. I insist upon it that the examination into the motives of the individual voters is notenly aiviolation of the Constitution. is not only a violation of all precedents. but is the most dangerous doctrine that ever was introduced into any parliamentary body in this country. This doctrine I maintained when Mr. Revels presented himself as a Senator from Mississippi. Although he was the first colored man who presented himself as a Senator. I then insisted that if the legislature of his State hdd chosen him. and he was qualified. he must bo amitted. If we are to go into the motives of the voters. how will it be with promises to assist in procuring office. which many of yeu. Senators. .have given. or. if not that. have at least permitted your friends to inform members of the legislature that you were a good follow and would take care of them ? There may be a thousand motives which actuate the human heart besides the simple fact of fitness for the position. Is the private. personal love of ohese who sent me to the Senate because they liked me to be inquired into by you. and compared with the sordid motives of those who may have been bought iu some other State I In conclusion. what motive is the justifiable one ? Is that a question for you to go into under your power to judge of the manner of an election ? No. sir. your power is confined to the manner of the election. As I said beftsre. if gentlemen would simply sit down and examine the custom in all parliamentary bodies on such qnestions. the simple rules of parliamentary law which proscribe that. in the failure of any rule prescribed. the majority rule should apply. and that the majority may prescribe other rules. and when they connect with the clause of the Constitution. as to the prescription of the time and manner of the election. the other clauses to which I have referred. you see the treumndous power of the word "choose." the power on which this Governieut is built. Wsen. the States cannot choose their Senators I simply have to say that they have lost their roprosentation as States. and the Government has been entirely changed. and.its most valuable and conservative features destroyed. Mr. President and Senators. I think you have changed this form of goverument recently about as much as the people of the country dosire. and. if you wish to change it further. let me beg you not to change it in the manner yon have been doing. not by the insidious power of ceonstrtiain. The clause which empowers you to see that the States have republican forms of government has been perverted already to destructive purposes. Do not change now further the form of government by changing the meaning of words. and dragging them from their context. Let us at least feel that there is soine safety in constitutions after all. let us feel that the written law is a permanent law which we all try to expound candidly i let us try at least to do that and not to distort it. Tie question as to the decision of this case. as to the principle involved. cannot compare in importance with that of protecting the integrity of our writteu Constitution and the maiutenance of helest interpretation. I have nothing to say in reference to the evidence in this case. As to the constitutional question. all the decisions support me in the position I have taken. and it will be my duty to call your attention for a brief moment to one or two of them. Befie going any farther. let me make a brief allusion to the New Jersey case. In that case. decided wrongfully. as I thought wrongfully. as the Judiciary Cmmittee of the Senate thought. who made a itunianinus report. written by the late Senator from Illinois. (Mr. Trumbull.) they had at least this excuse: there was aquestion raised as to whether the majrity could poriit a plurality to declare the vote of the Majority. Parliamentary law was with the election in that ease. the judgment of the Judiciary Committee was the same.

S

Mr. STOCKTON

Unknown

STOCKTON

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

I should like to ask the Senator from NewJersey. with his permission. if the point in that case was not this: the comstitution of Now Jersey required the two houses to meettog ether• and lid not the joint convention undertake to establish the plurality rule? The plurality rule in that case was not adopted by the two houses in separate session. but was adopted by the joint convention after they had met together in a joint convention. That was the ground. I think.

S

Mr. SHERMAN

Unknown

SHERMAN

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

I will answer the Senator with pleasure. although to do so leads me off from the tone of the remarhs I was making. What he has stated is undoubtedly true. but that rLe had been made in sending Delegates to the Continental Congress. At that time the rules governing our joint meetings were made.

S

Mr. S FOCKTON

S

FOCKTON

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

Before the Constitution was framed?

S

Mr. SHERMAN

Unknown

SHERMAN

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

Yes. sir . before the Constitution was framed and they have been made every succeeding year by the joint meetingchanging them. altering them. amending them every succeeding year. Senator after Senator was elected according to the rules so made by said joint conventions. the rule prescribed on eact occasion by the joint mecting for itself. Those rules have been changed fromt time to time. and soens elected by pluralities and some by majority. I mrely allude to this New Jersey case because it is at important part of the history of this great constitutional question. The Senator frons Ohio is right in saying that the poiit was made that the rule allowing an election by a plurality was adopted by the joint meeting. it was adopted in joint meeting. lut that haid always been the practice ii New Jersey. and Congress never haing prescribed the manner of elections under the power reserved to it i the Constitution. we had exercised and claimed the right to prescribe the manner. as every other State iu the Union had done. Now. sir. to answer the Senator. let me read front some remarks that r made on the occasion when the Now Jersey case was before the Senate: Chossn " by the pdole" Is always by a plurality vote it New Jersey. the legis. latnr has so proescribed. That is. in the general election. Chosen "by the legislature" Is as tbs seinate and owsejbh. in whe -r con. stitation has vested a I logislativo power. shall prescribe. anit fii fWiers of a apte. 6i rate prescribed. the role ofth body in prescribed by ple insnitary law. "lho times. places. and inaier for hoilding elections f .r Soiuetns ad itopresent. atives shall be presoribeo in each State by the legislature thereof." In some of the States it is prescribed by stato. tlitt the election shall be by concurrent action. in soei by joiit vats. ii others an iffort is first made to elect byseparate aetlen. and. oi futhre therso resect is hod tojoiit i oetieg. Seos States require a majority stall the miembers elected to eeose a Seator some enly a majority at tisie present col voting. soe leave she nainhor of votes .iesocmy te the joint msetiig to dotconie ciber by rib for that psrless or iarlicomost cry law. while as Siases it weald oeeiii hiave never passed ass3 law on the sobtoot. and .st. therefore. prosecilie iie mossieor it the time by heia ati tf he body eleeting.--Gongeeisnal Globe. part. ici ustso. 351). Ceisrees. ieee5cc. page i16i I. Ani here fllos a th history in evcry 8tate of the Unien of its maly nor of election. showing that almost every onie had adopted a differenit plan. Then fellows the comment ciade on these di.~terent plans by our best comnntators. Kent and Story. who asert that by practice. by uniform custoom. all these various "nianiners" of election were validif it was the cutom of the State it was the lw of the Stateand Congress never having prcscrihed the manner. the States had a right to prescribe it for chonselves intht Way. The only use I itimiled to sake of this Nos Jersey easeand my fuller allasion to it has been a mere digression in aiswer to the Senator from Ohiowas to shsow. so far as that case camn he nesedas a precedent. that it is l .reeedeit shoviig that the Senate lin te right to examine lto the maunerof electioni that there the qUistion was tile manner of eletion. not the rtourn. It was whether a m djrityhrd a right to permit a plurality to express its choice. That question was exansinse y the Judiciary Cnsittee. rpou rted n. delectd before tte Senate. and no questions was over uade bat that that was part of the manner. a part that Congress could prescribe. a part that the State hah prescribed. cud the quetis was. whether the prescription of te State was a proper one and a legal ne. in the ubseneeo of any proscriptien by Congress. Bat lucre there is No suh minestion. I now asic genstlemen to forget f r a omeut iy digressiom. aise whole tse I songtht to make of tliat case was to show that here there is gho sno questinin. There is i qpestone s to the nalsr of hic election. and there is pe question as to aoclung ever which you have control or ower. Then question which is her sonu ght tat inquired into cone cerns ti e iotes which actuated iicrividbal itabh ct the hegislatusre. sT are not itqniliing lute the action of the legislature as such at all Y on are not seeking information us to whether they as a legislatisre cehose." If you drive me to exaniiet a question it now before the Senate.. if you ghi ca y atteutio s to the beautifl hnd cluent remarks sf tihe Senator freii Inmdiaiia the other day. in referensce to clue necessity of purging The hoty. in refereine to the necessity of preserving the purity of elections. I repfly that it excited msy adisiratien very rauch. totrmay inquioe " What do you hcai to do heat ith Are you willing to establish the proposition that yos eay sent iqi this chamber. without the poes to get rid of in. a horsethief. e ra man guilty io any Yrino such as burglary or n rder Are yon lilig to establish . that principle and say itha t that was the law oar fgthers nmas for mis" No. sir . no. t orefathers were wise. nd wiser in their generation tha. sense of their children. They hkmew what party tassiosi ani whalt party hlat were an they prscribed that it should requnirea twothirds vote toexpel a an for crini. that it shonuhl require twothirds to sund a Senator out frns this hoty who was n nswort y to sit ic it. because a oedy that hal twothirds xid tnt need the one vote. But chi power is not given to a mre sajority to expel. for it is nothing mero udler the proee of an sontensio of the word "omaetiu . i ani if tsisp1sowerhe co iculeid. the party in power can keelp itltir majority forever. the geutleisen of the nsjority can keepi lieu power in this Sent forever if they are theojudges ifthe elections of Sueators in tim scaselaiddosvn by the Son ater from ind ia e. Is themr gentleman here whose eletioni enisot ho oxamined ito if tis 1power does siot stopi with lut crhede ? I washeresitting and votiog f nr niaaly a year etyself. It was not important that my case sheallho be xaiinud bebr in the view of they party in power. N o. the doctriie is boldly proclined that every one of yt Iolds youn seat by what tenure? The choice of thn c oilitire t No. sitr. hut subject to a revising power. a ceunt of apepenlse. the Senate of the Uited Satcs is ta be n court to deide o the action of the Stare legislature. I saty if the niojority can erol ndelr the citi im thine cam extend the meanssig of the vord "checia" beyond the manior and the form. e sif can inquire into the otives of iolo livitiiiiil cleetotrs there is not a ne who holds his seat ifs this body by virtue of the power of his legislature. I. for one. sir. was not willing to hold my seat before under such terms. and I do not propose to hold a seat now under any such terms. I am simply arguing a legal proposition. and I am trying to show that our fathers had a direct motive and purpose in drawing the broad distinction which they have drawn between the power of expulsion and the power of ftdging of an electios. The power to judge of fne election of a member is a power to be exercised by the majority. and it is only in reference to the manner of the election. The power to expel is a power unlimited. You may expel a man for spitting en your beautiful carpet if you can get twothirds to do it. and Y eu may keep him in his seat covered with crime. a disgrace in the eyes of the world and of the American Senate. an object which is a shane for you to sit by. Your power is unqualified. unlimited. You may expel for cause. and what that cause is each individual Senator is the judge of on his own conscience and his responsibility to the oath under which he acts. Mr. President. let me call your attention for one moment very briefly to the case of a Senator from Pennsylvania. The report in the caso was made by Mr. Benjamin. and if you do not follow me closely you may not possibly perceive how absolutely this ease confirms my view of the subject. and how much more powerfiul its control is over the subject from the very fact that it is not precisely this case. The case made against the Senator from Pennsylvania was this: 1. That there was not a concurrent majority of each house in favor of the can. didate declared to be elected. 2. That tie senate did not comply with the requirements of the act of the 2d July. 1:39. by appointing a teller ant making a nomination of porsons to fill said office. anti giving notice of said appointment and nomination at leaIst en day provious to the meeting ol said cenveation. In addition to the two grounds aforesaid. the protest presented by the members of the house of representatives charges3. That the election of the said SIMON CAmantoN was procured. as they are informed and believe. y corrupt and unlawful means. ilthencing the aetion and votes of certain members of the house of representatives of this State. al they request that en investigation be ordered by your honorable body. not only intotho regelamity of tile said election. but into the charges herein presented. in order that an opporunity may be afforded of submitting the proof upon which they rost. It is proper to observe that the real ground on which the comi ittuo acted was that the charges were frivolous. and that they were not maintained by any testimony. and. as I am on the legal question. I might have omitted referring to that fact if I had not caught sight of my honorable friend from Pennsylvonia. [Mr. CAMEltoN.J But going to the legal question. there was a direct charge that corrupt motives had actuated the individuals in the legislature who had voted for the Senator from Pennsylvania. If I am not mistaken. at that time the Senator from Pennsylvania represented the opposition party. and the power of the Senate was in other hands.

S

Mr. STOCKTON

Unknown

STOCKTON

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

That was in 1857?

S

Mr. SHERMAN

Unknown

SHERMAN

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

Yes. sir. in 1857. Mr. Benjamin at that time was considered one of the ablest lawyers before the bar of the Snpromo Court. and certainly one of the most distinguished Senators in this body. representing the State of Louisiana. Ho wrote this report. and the part of it alone to which I wish to call your attention is this: If It be. indeed. true that members of the house of representatives of Pennsylvania have been influenced by corrupt considerations or unlawful appliancesThat is precisely what is charged here in this evidencethe means of investigation and redress are in the power of the very parties who seek the aid of the Senate of the United States.

S

Mr. STOCKTON

Unknown

STOCKTON

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

Will the Senator allow me right there to ask him what power a State legislature has in sut a case. whether it has the power to snake an investigation. and. if it finds that there was bribery. has it the power to annul the election of a Senator ?

S

Mr. MORTON

Unknown

MORTON

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

I will lot the Senator hear what Mr. Benjamin said first. because I have some confidence in that: That their complaint will meet the respectful consideration of that house. your committee are net permitted to doubt. If upon such investigation the facts charged are proven and if they. in any manner. involve the character of the reesetyeletel member of this body fre1 the State of Pennsylvania. the Constitution 6f the United States has not left the Senate without ample means for protect. ing itself against the presence of unworthy members in its midst. What clause of the Constitution? The clause relative to elections? No. sir. If that case is a precedent. if the action of the democratic party when it was in power. dealing with a gentleman of the Opposition. is a precedent. if the views of the learned and distiuguished men who sat here then as judges. to administer the law on such iqLustions. faithfully and truly. are worth anything. yon must send this case back to the State of Kansas. and have the evidence sent here. proving what is alleged. and. if it be proven. the Constitution has not left us without the power. by expulsion. to freo ourselves from having unworthy mcmhers in our midst. The case of Bright and Fitch. so far as it touches on this point. is very clear. and all the arguments in the case. which are sot forth at length in the Globe. maintain the view that I have presented. so far as can read them . but I shall not trouble the Senate with quoting from them. as it is growing late. But the case of Potter vs. Robbins is so much in point that I desire to call attention to it for a moment. I quote from Contested Election Cases. page 900: The Constitution of the United States provides that " each House shall be tha judge of the olectlons. returns. and qualifications of its own members." (Article I. section 5.) The members of the House of Ropresntatives are to be chose.. by the people of the several States having tim qsnalfieations requisite for electors of the isot ainmerous branch of the State legislature. The members of the 6onate tire to ho chosen by tle leislatnre of each State and tle times. plance. and manor of holdiwg elections for Seitors amid Representatives shall hi prescribed in caeh Slate by the legislature thereof. but the Congress nmy at any time. by law. late ir alter sch regulations. except as to the places of cloosiig Sonator. (cngress taving passed no law el the subject. we must look into the statutes of the several States for thes regulations. and conform our action to them. The Senators from each State are eqoal in number. and cannot be increased or diminished. cven by an amodnesnt of the Constitution. without the cosent of th States respectively. They are chosen by the States as political sovereiguties. wilhout reard to their pgresntativepopolatten. and form the Federal branch of the national legislatnre. Thte same body of men which possesses the powers of legislation in each State is alone competent to appoint Senators to Congreso for the tert proscribodin the Con. stitution. I In the performance of this duty. the State etso in the highest sovereign Calcity. and the causes which would render the election of a §onator void must be such as wold destroy the validity of all laws cuatced by the bedy by which the Senator was chosen. Other cuses mighbt exist to renlerthe election aoidable. and these are enumerated in the Constitution. beyond which the Senate cannot interpucc its authority to disturb or control the sovereign powers of tie States. vested in their logislaturos by the Cionstitution of the United States. We might inquire. .was the person electoed thirty years of age at the time of his ilectiol . 7tid he iee nine years a citizen of the United States? Was he. at the time of bis -letion. a citizen of the State forswhich he shall have been chose. 5 Was the election held at the time and place directed by the laws of the State? These are facts ca. pablo of clear demonstration by proofs. and in eth absence of thu reqoiito qialifications in either of the specifitI eases. or if che existing laws of the State rogiat. ingtth time and place for holding the election were violated. the Senate. acting under the power to judge of "the elections returns. and qualificatims of its own mowters. might adJjudge the commission of the person elected void. although in all other respects it wa legal and constitutiotl. But woe the sovereiga will of the State is inado k own throigh its legislature. and consunmated hy its proper officil functionaries in duo form. it would it a dangerous exertion of Power to look behind the commission for defects in the coutponent parts of the egielature. or into the peculiar organization of the body. fer reasons to jiteiiy the Senate in declaring its aes absolutely nill and void. Soh a power. if car. ro in t s logitimato extent. would subject the entire sope of Stte legislation to ie overruled by our decision. and even the right of suffirgo of intdividil member of the legislature whose elections were contested. might be set aside. It weuld also lead to investigations into the motives of members in casting their votes. for tie purpose of establishing a charge of briboryor corruption in partieular oases. These matters. your comnittee think. prolerly belong to the tribunals of the State. and cannot constitute the basis on which the Seinte could. without an infringement of State sivereiaty. elaim the right to declare the election of a Sol .ator void. who possessed the -cqisito qulifieabiens. and wits chossn aecordig to the fRonas of law and the Constiation. But let me call the attention of the Senate for a moment to the case of Mr. Yulco of Florida. The case of Yuleo vs. Mallory is familiar to Senators. and yet they nmy not see how much it bears on this point. There it was decided thatThe State legislature may choose its own method for the election of a United States Senator. Look at the effect of that upon this question of prescription upon the long cnstom that grew up as the common law in all the States of choosing in their owii way. until Congress interfered within a few years past. On the first ballot Mr. Ytde. the contestant. received 2O voles. and 29 other votes were given to "blank." Mr. ulec claimed that as he was the "only quelifled person voted for" he was dulyelcted Senator. The eommittee hold otherwise. The report of this committee was made by a gentleman not less distinguished for his examinuatiou and knowledge ofthis constitutional question than any of the gentlemen I have heretofore alluded to . I mean Mr. Bright. of Indiana. He says in the report : In deciding the questions which are raised out of the facts. the Constitution of the United States must. to the extent of its provisions. prevail over all other authority. That instrument gives to each State the right to elct two Senators. Article f. section 4. is in these words: "The times. places. and imnnner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescriod in each State by the legislatures thereof." Tho words of the third section in the same article aro: " The Senate of the United States shall be compoised of two Senators from oath State. chosen by the legielature thereof for six years." The first qestion. then. which arises is. what constitutes the logislaturo of Florida T for that. and that only. has the right to make the choice. The Constitution of the United States. Article I. section 1. says: "All hegislative powers herein grealted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States. which shall consist of a Senato and Ilouse of Represontatives." The constittiono f Florida declares that "the legislative power of the State shall bevested in two distinct branches. the one to be styled the senate. the other the house of representatives. both together the euonral assembly." These athorities leas no doubt that the two houses consti eto th legislature of lorida. which holi the unqualified right. ceder the Comistitution of the United States. to elect the Senators for the State. Ha this body executed the tnist confided to it in seeh a manner as to satisfy the terms of the Constitution I The time. the place. and the mtamner of holding the election ltc icil to be preserlied by it. To the time and place no objection is made. but the validity of the manner is questioed. The preset case is a great deal stronger than this. This case of Yule is much more like the case in Now Jersey. The question was whether you should count blank votes . and that was the 1manner."1 that was not the "return." That was the manner. which they had the absolute right before the passage of the Federal statute to prescribe. It was so held. and this report was unanimously adopted by the Senate of the UnitedStates. I read fuilither from it: No mode of election is prescribed by the Constitution. but this duty is left to the discretion of the several legisatures of the States. In carrying out the power. some elect by a concurrent vote of the two branches. the one having a negative upon the action of the other . others elect in a convention of the two houses. in which case (as far as .)our c tmiiittie are advised) a maority prevails. If numbers be regarded as a material element in such elections. it is manifest that in the same body ofnien different results may be produced. acorhing as one mode or the other is persucd. There may be in convention a majority in favor of a sandidato. mkiteg his success by this mode certain. while with the same number hr his favor he might he defeated in one of the houses. if a concurrent veto is required. and such cases have occurred. Again. it. may be observed that the power gives to the legislature to regulate the time. place. and manner applies as well to Representatives as to Senators. and here agoan are other diversities in the manner of exercising it. Some States elect by apluraity of totes. others by a majority. ardothe hove required arbth first trial a mritly. sod i plurality afterward. Sore again (until Cngress made law upon the snubjeta elected by generai ticket. ethers either by single distriets or districts entitlord to mole than one. according to coiventence. oneeef t~hese muordes of electiug eato en ecpreniatires have been bold unoeestttiencl..butinenbers have umforcly been admitted to their seats. whether elcted in ens or ether of these roIe. Then the report concludes: The will of tho two houses. when ascertained by vote in their respective chambers. is for this purpose a sufficiont law. becasos they alone are eporwered to proscribe the manner of choosing in such moe or by sech moeans as they please. On this point a State constitution can neitler control nor modify th of the United States. fur the latter is the saupromo law. That report is a simple summary of the law as declared in every case that I have examined which bears at all upon this question. There is. as I cald when I began. but one question in reference to the action of the State since Congress has prescribed the manner of clection. and that is. was the body which sent this man here the legislature. and did it choose him I In other words. did they manifest by their voice. by their method of speaking. which is the credentials when they are not attacked. and when they are attacked is by aseertaining whether a majority of the body on such rule as is now proscribed by the law of Congress did so manifest their choice. Can anything be clearer or plainer ? Will it be insisted that "election" is not a synonym for " choice 7" Will it be insisted that the moaifeisation of the will of the legislature. made in the form prescribed by law. is not the choice ofthe legislature. and that the choice is not an election ? How far back must we run to refine upon words ?

S

Mr. STOCKTON

Unknown

STOCKTON

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

Will the Senator allow me to interrupt him for a moment?

S

Mr. MORTON

Unknown

MORTON

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

I simply want to say to the Senator. as he has referred to the case of Mr. Cxmrnro. that if it does not disturb him I should like to call his attention to that ease for the purpose of information. I want to suggest to him that upon the report itself in that case the question here involved was not even intimated. If the Senator will allow me to read a single paragraph from that -report of Mr. Benjamin. it will bear out what I say. The question there was simply this. whether there was such information sent to the Senate of the United States as would justify it in instituting the investigation. The committee said not. They intimated that the legislature itself might make the investigation. and that the house of the legislature to which the petitioning members belonged might investigate the conduct of those members. and if. upon such investigation. that house found that any of their members had been guilty of the charges alleged. which involved the character of the Senatorelect. that upon such information being communicated to the Senate of the United States. the Senate was armed with the power to protect itself. There wah no question before this body as to how it should do it. whether by declaring the election void or by expulsion. No such question was raised. but it was suggested that the legislature of the State shold first investigate the matter. just as they have done in Kansas in this case. and if they found the charges sustained. upon that information the Senate of the United States could proceed. and. as the committee said. was armed with power. They did not say how. whether by expulsion or by judging of the election . they oxpressed no opinion on that point. but said the Senate was armed with power to protect itself against unworthy members. There is no intiIlatioia in that report against the doctrine for which I ann conteidiug. but. on the contrary. a distinct recognition of the doctrine that if there was bribery in the election of aSenator. the Senate had the power to protect itself against that bribery.

S

Mr. MORTON

Unknown

MORTON

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

So far from being annoyed by the interruptionhy the Senator from Indiana. I can only say that I consider it a groat compliment that he should think the observations I am making so important as to justify him in interrupting me.

S

Mr. STOCKTON

Unknown

STOCKTON

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

I do not want to disturb the Senator. and I know interruptions ure sometimes annoying.

S

Mr. MORTON

Unknown

MORTON

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

I am speaking seriously. sirnot ironically. I did not know my remarks were of so much importance before. I willreply to the Senator that it is undoubtedly true that the case of Mr. CAMeBRoN. as I stated when I referred to it. was put upon other grounds. As I said to the Senator from Pennsylvania himself. his case. I am happy to say. is not one which when it came to be examined involved this question. Therefore. if the Senator from Indiana was in court. and was to ask me whether this was an authority which should control the court or whether it might not be considered in some measure sbile- dictum. 1. perhaps. would agree with him. But nevertheless the opinions of distinguished lcal gentlemen. as well as their arguments made on such cases. in ongress. I like to look to as guides. and they do help me very much when my mind is in doubt and trouble. I referred to this case for the purpose of showing that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary at that time supposed that even if the charge was true that ir. C~msnoN had obtained his election by corruptinig voters. the proper course to take was for the legislature. the very parties. as the report says. who ask us to investigate.to doitthemselves. and when theysend us word that the allegations are true. the Constitution has not left us without power to free ourselves from having suh a person in our midst.

S

Mr. STOCKTON

Unknown

STOCKTON

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

But that power was to be exercised here.

S

Mr. MO TON

MO

TON

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

Yes. sir. but the power of expulsion. not the power to unseat. I can make that no plainer.

S

Mr. STOCKTON

Unknown

STOCKTON

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

That is not intimated.

S

Mr. MORTON

Unknown

MORTON

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

Clearly. Now. in further answer to the Senator from Iludana. let me refer to seine remarks of Mr. Badger. to be found in the Congreoo8iece Globe for the first session of the Thirtysecond Congress. on the case of 1Ir. Yulce. Mr. Badger undoubtedly was one of the ablest lawyers we have ever had in the Senate. whose name is revered at the bar to his day in his native State. and who has left in his arguments in tbis body on constitutional questions a name that any of us might well be proud to have. Mr. Badger said. ia the Yale case: An attempt is made to show that there is something in the diecisions of ether States and rilbuols. something in the naters of a general parliamentary law. which controls the State efFlernln oil this poinb. and fCxs the ethoraceer of assent popn those hInl votes. or makes them uilities. Permit me to say that 1it were aowr that every other State in the Union. or on the face of the earth. had laid it down as a role that blarik votes eheald b. rejecte(. or counted as votes of assent. this would net. In the slightest i]egree. affect this election. if a different rule or practice has prevailed in Florida. for Florida. in the absence of any legislation by Congress. has as absolute a right to presribc a rule or adopt a practice of her own. as to the mode of signifying assontor dissent. as any other tribunal. or legislature. or authority on earth. . The mode of signifying assent or dissent. that is the manner prescribed which I attempted to call the attention of the Senate to when I first commenced reading fromn the Constitution. Whenever one of these great men takes up the question. you will see invariably that be confines the power of the Senate in being judges of til election to the context in which that clause is found. and speaks of it as a power to judge in regard to the prescription of the manner. In every argument. the point has been as to the presumption of the manner which the States could make wien Congress had not acted. but when Congress controls by its prescription. it prevents the elections from being made in ny other manner but that which fulfills entirely the sum of the requisition . and if the election is in accordance with the manner thus prescribed. the Constitution and the laws as our fathers intended to leave them. provide that that shall be sufficient1 and if we wish to purge our body by visiting upon individuals punishment for indidrial offenses. we must do it and can do it alone by the Vower of expulsion. We are then dealing with individuals. and not with legislatcres. Now. Mr. Presideit. is there any danger in this alleged power being exercised in the way I leave pointed out? I think I have shown you that there is great danger in exercising or assuming to exercise any snoh power. Admit. sir. that there is great doubt about its existoncesuppose there be doubt whether I am right or notwhich is the wiser. which is the safer construction? Suppose it be in great doubt whether my views are right. and whether these great lawyers to whom I have referred nra right in their view. is there any better tince than now to assert the true doctrine. when there cn be no haman being in this chainber who would not gladly see any gentleman accused of any charge fclly vindicated ? After a party strite which has left us all with hindlier feelings toward one another. and toward one anothers views. than we have had before. ad than we may possibly have hereafter. now. when party heat does not excite our minds. is the time to maintain the safe construction of the Constitution. Is there any better occasion for gentenen oin the other side of this House to rio as gentlemen on both sides did. as it appears in the volumes which I have before me. on this judicial questioncome out and declare their opinions as constitutional lawyers. no matter what the result might be upon individuals? Mr. President. I have oceupied mnnch more time than I expected when I rose. so much time. indeed. that I feel it my duty to close my remarks. although there are other points which I should have liked under other circumnstaues to have touched upon. Trusting that in this case the Senate may act calmly and judicially. and keep in mind the landmarks of our fathers. I close my remarks o the case.

S

Mr. STOCKTON

Unknown

STOCKTON

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

Mr. President. j ust one word in regard to the report from which the Senator from New Jersey last read. to which I desire the attention of the Senate. It has been some time since I read that report. and I am very glad the Senator from New Jersey has called my attention to it. because it contains a distinct recogition of the power of the Senate to examine and determine for itself what shall he the rights of a member into whose election bribery or corruption may have entered. With this statement I wish to read the concluding part of the report.

S

Mr. MORTON

Unknown

MORTON

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

What report is that?

S

Mr. BOREMAN

Unknown

BOREMAN

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

In the CaMRoN case. The committee cannot reommend that this prayer be granted. That is. the prayer of the petitioners that the Senate shall examine into the matter of that election. The allegation is entirely too vague and Indefinite tojnstifj such a recommendation. Sot a sinrls fact or circumstance is detailed as a basis for the general charge. Neither t is nature of the means alleged to he corrupt eld unlawful. nor the timo. place. or manner of using them. is sot forth. nor is it even alleged that tire sitting member participated im the use of ach corrupt means. or. indeed. had any knowleige of their existence. Under no state of facts could your committee deem it conasistent with propriety. or with the dignity of this boy. to send outa roving commision in scareh of proofs of fraud in ordher to deprive one of its ioem. hers of a seat to which he is. prinsfaie. entitled. still less can they recommend such a course when the parties alleging the fraud and oerruption are themselves armed with ample powers for investigation. ile fifty persons petitioning in this case were members of the legislature of Pennsylvania. If it be. indeed. true that members of the house of representatives of Pennsylvania have been influenced by corrupt consideratios or nlawful appliances. the inoans of investigation and redress are in the power of the very parties who sock the aid of the Senate of th United Snate. Let their complaint be inad to the house of which they are members. and which is tine tribun neeuliarly approliao for conducting line desirend invstigation. That their complaint will moot the respeotful consideration of that house. your cemmittee ars net piermitted ts dot. If inpon such inneostiga tien the tarts charged arce pnroven. and if [boy. in any unanner. inireiro the shmaatec sf tine recoutl -iecta nnseasher of tints bso~ frees thle Stste of lFennesylvania. the Ceestituntion of tine United States inns est left tine Sesnato without aminle means for prn teethng itself against thle presance of unpworthy members in its midst. If tie ifornatioan given to the Senate. upon t ai investigation i tine State legislatre. siews that the member has hen elected by franduleut or corrpt means. tihes the co ittee say that tine Constitirtion arms the femate with asoepower for selfprotection. It tines snot say how that poweris to he exercisedi. That question is not even hinted at. whether by declaring the election void. or by expuihion. There was no question of thai knd before the Senate.

S

Mr. MORTON

Unknown

MORTON

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

I should like to ask the Seator from Idiana winether there is net a distinct clause ins the Constitution which assthories s oto expel. ad whether there is any distinct clause authoriing ts to unseat. Wbnn. therefore. tnat report refers to the Censtitution net leaviag tn withoat ample power. can it refer to anything but the power to expel Mr. MORTON• There is a clause which says that the Senate nixy expel. and there is another clause which says the Senate mny judge -of the election. Thnat covets the cane exactly. here is adl Olfens50 goling to the election and a part of the election. and if the Senate cannot judge of the election in that particular. in what partieclar can thiny jundg of the electio? The charge is that the election has bec poisonedhas been corrupted by bribery. That is the very qnsstion the Senate isernpowrdtojnudg aboutto jdge of the election . that is to say. of all qnestions that enter into the lceton . T riht was tine nenig nlacet upon i. when it was pt into the onstitution. ant we kniow historically that it was intended to correspnt exactly with te power of the bousecr n the election of its ntubhrs.

S

Mr. TOCKTON

Unknown

TOCKTON

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

I should like a little information oa this poinnt. I inquire of the Senator from lnina.. who seenosto have been readinng the debate. as well an he report in the Case le quotes. wheher. as In understands it the report dmits of any doubt as to the m oaning of the Judiiatry Committee wie . they say tht the Consttion has not left the Senate without power.

S

Mr. CONKLING

Unknown

CONKLING

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

I have nt rad the debate. I have jst had ny attention called to the report. nd I had not seen that for: a long time.

S

Mr. MORTON

Unknown

MORTON

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

Then Iask attention o ttwo poiuts in the reor t. In the first place. the cemaittee report that if the facts alleged shall be prove and . They involve the character of fe recentlyelected ominer . not if they involve his electio n. net if they involve is qualifiaties. not if they involve his returns. ut if they "involve tie character of the recentlyelected uember of his body." the Senate nay proceed. I ncight say. a lawyer. as Mr. enjanin was. hoding the pen. it would be singular if. meaning to make the fact of election the point of doubt and inquiry. he shoul use these word. "of the reentlyelected unenbr of the body . it would be odd for hn to assume the very thing he moaCt to put in issue. oBthe proceeds: Tin Cnstitntion of thin Iied States has not lft the Senate nithut apin uneaus of protecting itseif agarAgainst what Against the presence of men whose elections are innpugned for fraud. bribery. venality. pollution I Not at all. but againstte presence of unworthy repornrs in its midsh. Can any lawyer read that lnguage and suppose tha tine lawyer who employed it itndd to refr to that power found in the words. "eachoun e shallbe t ne jdgep o f . and q bniftien t a tUime cation L G ofis hw ebrsn I submnitn to tehonbl Sntor romt Indiana that if we te c trying. as I trust we are. to aid each other t come to a correct conclusion in a painful and puzzling inquiry it is not wortl while to daiken ceousel by words. so far as to deny that this report unmistakably. at that point. means to delare that if i en investigation should fix unpon a imember any stigma tainting his character as a Senator . the Constitution has armed us with tin poer to Ihrevent him. elected thongh hobo. from sitting in our midst. I bave not read the debate on the report . therefore I will aflirun nothing about it. but I think it will show that Mr. Pugh. then a Senator fromn hi who dissented sharply from the reort undersTeod it. as others did. to mean what the Senator from Nw lJersey understands it to mean. I think the debate will show that every one men of atprted to sustain or to asail the report understood the comittee to sy that the remedy in that ase. if the facts should warrant it. would be uder the expulsionclase and not nder the election clause of the Constitution.

S

Mr. CONKLING

Unknown

CONKLING

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

Mr. Path dissented from that report upoe thys grosoyd. s i understand: The majority of the committee determined that they would ot enter upon the investigation here upon the mere petition of fifty members. but that hlgislaturoe ought first to make the investigation. an. ifs they found that thmers was truth in these charges. they intimated that thou th Senate had the power to take ths matter up and protect itself from the presence of a meuber eulted by fraud. Mr. Pngh thought the Senate ought to proceed upon the potition of the fifty members as individuals. and inaugurato thoinvestigation itself. But my friend. I think. will look in vain to find that there was any question before that committee or any questiou before the Senate as to how the Senate should proceed in case it did come back to the Senate from the legislature of Penusylvaniawhether it should proceed by expulsion or by declaring the election void. I sappsow.that question was not even suggested. not even considered. and was not in the mind of anybody at that time. because there was no reason why it should be. All that is to be drawn from the report is. that the Senate has the power to protect itself against a member who has been elected by bribery. There is the recognition of that power. In what way it should be exercised they did not discuss. That is the question we have to meet now.

S

Mr. MORTON

Unknown

MORTON

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

When I rose there was hut one point between the Senator from Indiana and myself. lIe sits down now leaving two points apparently between ins. He concludes bysaying that there was no such point as this is injudgment before the Senate then. I understand that. and if his criticism is that this part of the report is obiter dictnm. I agree with him. The Senate was nt called upon in that case to decide any such question. They lnisht have disposed of it without touching the question. But the point between my friend and myself was upon te nmaning of this lcngngenotspoun what the committee was called upon to say. but upon what it did sayand I venture to alirm that nothing can be clearer than that the report refers planinly to the expulsion clause of the Constitution. and leaves no room to suppose that it refers to the other clause about judging nf the elections. qualifications. and returns of members. Mir. President. why does this report say that tierois "nothing which implicates the Senator from Pennsylvania P What difference would that make had itbeen tree thathis election was bought with ioneythat it wan the result of bribery and corruption. and the Senate could annul it? What difference did it make in judging of his election whether lie was "implicated "or notI

S

Mr. CONKLING

Unknown

CONKLING

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

That was Mr.Pughs argument.

S

Mr. MORTON

Unknown

MORTON

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

I beg the Senators pardon. I am talking about the report. Suppose great railway corporations should combine and buy up a legislature bodily. wonld Mr. Benjamin or any other lawyer. holding that we could avoid an election because it was influenced by brihery. sit here and tantalize the Senate by stopping to consider whether the member was "implicated" or not? No. sir. concede once the right to inquire into the election of a Senator on the ground of bribery. and suppose a case where bribery is prove[ which controlled the election. and what difference does it make until you con to tia expulsion power whether the Senator himself be imlicated or not? Suppose him a mere dupe. suppose him a man of straw. soppose. in the presence of some great corporation. he was as ignorant. as innocent. and as helpless as a. sheep that was to be shorn. atd was dumb before his shearer. nevertheless. supposing his election to bo nought. shall we be told that. when we judge of the virtue or the vice of that elcetiou. our decision is to lugo upon whether he was the cause of all this or not. or whether he was implicated ? No. sir. I deny. in the interest of purity. in the interest of the power to test by legal rules the effects of bribery. that the privity of a particular man is the criterion by which bribery must be tried. What. then. was the motive in this report in dwelling upon the fnct that it was not alleged that the Senator was implicated? If tine Senate could entertain jurisdiction to inquire whether bribery controlled and influenced his election or not. withaviewto dissolve it. his being implicated or not was entirely immaterial. it could not be material until you come to the crucial test the committee applied. What was that ? Is he an " unworthy rncnnber?" If he is. the report says tie Constitution has not left the Senate naked to its encinios. The Constitutios has armed each House with the power to do what ? To ascertain whether the character of one of its members is involved. and then to protect itself against the presence of nnworthy meubers. The Senate was not called upon. 1 repeat. to decide the question. I agree with tie n ator fromludianathere. The connitteemighthave performed its whole duty without deciding any such questions. But here stands tin record of that which the counittoe did see lit to report. The issue at this moment is what it means. and I submit that no man can read it and seriously suppose that the committee intended to say that if. after as investigation took place. the Senate proceeded. it would be under the power given by tine Constitution to judge nnf tin election. returns. and qualifications of its members.

S

Mr. CONKLING

Unknown

CONKLING

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

pro tcumtirc. The qnestion is. will the Senate agree to the resolution V

S

The PRESIDENT

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

03121873.txt

Tho Seniatorfrn Illinois. who was in thie anidst of hisspeceh. yielded to the Senator froi New Jersey with the understanding that tire Senator from Illinois should retain the floor until toirnorrw. I move now that the Senate adjourn.

S

Mr.SCOTT

Unknown

SCOTT

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

No. let us have an executive session. Mr. SCor. If there be a necessity for that. I withdraw my motion.

S

Mr. RAMSEY

Unknown

RAMSEY

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

I move that the Senate proeecd to the consideratiou of executive business.

S

Mr. CONKLING

Unknown

CONKLING

Unknown

M

03121873.txt

Mr. President. I ask tile Senato to excuse 1m from service upon the Committee on Public Iuildiugs and Grounds. and also the Committee oi Agriculture.

None

Mr. McCREERY

Unknown

MCCREERY

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

The Senator from Kentaehy asks the Senate to excuse him from service otn the two committees named by lim. Will the Senate so excuse him? The question being put. Mr. McCEEy was excused. WtVTrmDEAWAL OF PAtERS.

S

The PRESIDENT pro tempore

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

03131873.txt

I ask that an order be entered Itliat Andrew Joiiison. who has a claim against the United States for taxes which lie alleges to have been illegally collected. be allowed to withdraw his petition.

S

Mr. PRATT

Unknown

PRATT

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

pro tempre. Has there been mn adverse report on the ease l

S

The PRESIDENT

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

03131873.txt

There has been no report at all.

S

Mr. PRATT

Unknown

PRATT

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

p to tenpore. The Chair is informod that that order has already been entered at this session.

S

The PRESIDENT

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

03131873.txt

The order was incorrectly entered. An order was entered granting him leave to withdraw his applicatiot fr a pension. He has no application of the sort. The PRESIDENTpro tesepere. The order will be entered as suggosted by the Senator from Indiana. if there be no objection.

S

Mr. PRATT

Unknown

PRATT

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

I offer the following resolution Restoled. Thst tie Secretary of the Sotate he. and li is Iereby. d1irected to pay to oohn Ray ntl W. e. Mcillen each ftll citmpensation as Sentor fer the tte.i lired term for which he)y were electeti. as shown by their respective credeutials. intil the 4th of March. 1873. I move the reference of the resolution to the Committee to Audit and Control the Contingent Expenses of the Senate.

S

Mr. WEST

Unknown

WEST

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

I suggest that the resolution ought to go to the Committee on Privileges and Elections.

S

Mr. MORITON

Unknown

MORITON

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

I have no objection to that reference.

S

Mr. WEST

Unknown

WEST

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

pro teltporo. That reference will be made.

S

The PRESIDENT

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

03131873.txt

I offer the following resolution: Besoled. That the Committee on Rltles be directed to iso no more tickets of admission to the reporters gallery than thero tre accotnotiations for ttem al that no transient tickets or passesbe issued hlurto. atil that th Scrgeatut.at. ris be directed to exclude ftom the reporters gallery all persons nob havitg tickets of admission thereto. I ask the reference of the resolution to the Committee on Rules. as the subject amy ceqtuire somewhat more careful consideration than I have been able to give it. but the object of the resolution is to protect the reporters in their gallery. We give them accominodations in order that they may make careful reports. The gallery now aeomimodates between thirty atd forty people. and there havo been times. on great occasions. when more than at any other time those who are the rightful occupants ofthe gallery are entitled to it. that they have been crowded ont by strangers. Passes have been given. I think. sometimes for more than double the capacity of the gallery. The result is. that if the reporters leave their seats they find them occupied when they return. and if they stay in their seats they are crowded and elbowed by intruders. If the rule is made imperative that nobody shall go into the gallery bat those who are entitled to seats there. it will be a great convenience to those entitled to them. and will not deprive others of any rights that they are entitled to. The PRESIDENTyiro terneore. The resolution will be referred to the Committee oi Rules.

S

Mr. ANTHONY

Unknown

ANTHONY

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

I present the petition of Radcliffe & Ilopkins. publishers of the Ogdewtbitrqh Leader. of Ogdonsburgh. Aaupaca County. Wisconsin. and teh petition of Philip Mf. Pryor. publisher of the tispint Times. of Wanpun. Fond dIn Lan Connty. Wisconsin. renonstratiug against any discrimination in the laws against newspapers not wholly printed in one county. and I move the reference of these petitions to the Committee on PostOffices and PostRoads.

S

Mr. HOWE

Unknown

HOWE

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

They will be so referred.

S

The PRESIDENT pro tempore

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

03131873.txt

I suggest to the Senator that the matter of these petitions has been disposed of. There is no such law discriminating against newspapers only partially published in the conlty.

S

Mr. RAMSEY

Unknown

RAMSEY

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

This is the commenceoment of a Congress. and it is not known what may take place between this and the end of the Congress. I think it is well enough to let these petitions be referred to the committee.

S

Mr. HOWE

Unknown

HOWE

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

They recite a law which is not a law. The PRESIDENTpro tenpore. The petitions will be referred to the Committee on PostOffices and PostRoads.

S

Mr. RAMSEY

Unknown

RAMSEY

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

I also present the petition of John Alsop. heir of Thomas Jenkins. deceased. in aid of thobill for the payment of French spoliations. and I ask its reference to thoCommittee on Foreign Relations.

S

Mr. HOWE

Unknown

HOWE

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

poe tesapoere. It will be so referred.-

S

The PRESIDENT

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

03131873.txt

As it sceins to be it. order to puesent 1petitions. I ask leave to present two or throe that I have. I presot the petition of Anton Sntag-

S

Mr. FENTON

Unknown

FENTON

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

The Senator fronn Maine. [Mr. Ilar.ttre.] who is not here now. entered a sted ing objection agaitst the presentation of petitions at thi session. and it seins to tue that the objection was a reasonable one. I do not wish to object to the Sonator from New York presenting his petitions. however. if others are. received.

S

Mr. SHERMAN

Unknown

SHERMAN

Unknown

M

03131873.txt