Datasets:

Eugleo

/

us-congressional-speeches

like 0

The Senator from Maine ntado theobjection upon nme. but I see that others are presenting petitions. and so I hope my friend from Ohio will wait until I got rid of thosethat I have chargo of.

S

Mr. PENTON

Unknown

PENTON

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

I will pass it over today. but I think myself it is objectionablo in an executive session to present legislative petitions. Still. I will not object.

S

Mr. SHERMAN

Unknown

SHERMAN

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

jiro tenspore. Tie Chair. on reflection. will rule all the petitions mid memorials which have been ofIbred looking to legislation. out of order at thi present session. regarding the standlng objection which was made by the Senator from Maine as continening on that subject.

S

The PRESIDENT

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

03131873.txt

This ruling. I take it. does not affect the petitions I have just offered.

S

Mr. HOWE

Unknown

HOWE

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

I an told that it was settled eight years ago. after fell consideration. that the Senate had no power to receive petitions in an executive session.

S

Mr. SHERMAN

Unknown

SHERMAN

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

pro tesiper. The ruling does apply to all petitions offered this morning touching legislative business. or looking to it.

S

The PRESIDENT

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

03131873.txt

Now.Mr. President. I have a word to say about that. 1 supposed the order to refer those ietitions had already been made.

S

Mr. HOWE

Unknown

HOWE

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

pro tempere. The Chair will state that the order was tnade inadvertently. not by the action of the Senate but by the direction of the CLair. understanding it to ie assented to. and it having been dons inadvertently. and the objection being made now to receiving other petitions of the same character. the Chair must sustain the objection. and. of course. it should be applied to all the petiSinns. The Senator from Wisconsin will be allowed. of course. to withdraw his petitions. to be presented at a subsequenttime in legislative session.

S

The PRESIDENT

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

03131873.txt

It is precisely that which I do not want to do.

S

Mr. HOWE

Unknown

HOWE

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

pro tmpore. The Chair does not compcl the Sen ator to withdra.w them. but only says that he may do so.

S

The PRESIDENT

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

03131873.txt

I think. if tie Chair will pardon Tie a single snggestion that we can get along with this difficulty whe it is reflected in the irst. place that there is no objection made. as I understand it. to the petitions offered by the Senator from New York. and if there is any objection made to the petitions that he ofiers. there certainly was no objection offered to the petitions which I presented.

S

Mr. HOWE

Unknown

HOWE

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

The objection wia not personal. of canrse. It was made first by the Senator from Maine to petitions that looked to legislation. nnd the point was made by hin that by the usages of the Senate and by the rules of the Senate we have no power at this session to consider any petitions of a legislative character. and it was so held by the Senate.

S

Mr. SHERMAN

Unknown

SHERMAN

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

I do not know when it was so held by the Senate. but I think I rio know that on that day when it was so held the Senato made a mistake. It itay not be very modest to say so.

S

Mr. HOWE

Unknown

HOWE

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

If the Senator from Wisconsin desires it. the Chair will submit the question to the Senate whether these petitions shall be received.

S

The PRESIDENT protempore

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

03131873.txt

I shoald be very glad if the Senate would allow these petitions to be presented. and for a very plain reason. The petitions have already come into my hands. not in season to be offered at thie late session. I do not care to tear them np. That would not ho respectful to the petitioners. I do not like to keep them on my tiles during the long recess. I see no possible objeetion to their being roceived. Receiving petitions is not executive business. it is not legislative business. in my judgment. Of course w cannuot legislate pon them. but why the Senate is not as competenst to receive and file. or refer any petitions. as it is to make committees to which to refer petitions. or as it is to try members of our body. I cannot understand. I cannot understand what abuse can grow out of it. It seen to me it is being altogether too technical to raise an objection or to interpose an objection to doing this simple work. We are in daily debate upon a question which is not an executive question . to he sure. it is not legislative bosincess. Noither is the receoivin of)otitionsny i iiudg-( mont. legislative business. You simldy afford a place on your hiles for these petitions now. The Senate always exists. your tiles always continue. and there is much less danger of petitions being lost when they are placed on those files. I really hope the Senate will consent to receive these petitions.

S

Mr. HOWE

Unknown

HOWE

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

pro lemper. The question is. will the Senate receive petitions calling for legislative action I

S

The PRESIDENT

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

03131873.txt

As a matter of course. if tit idea of the Senator from Wisconsin is simply to secure the custody of these petitions. I have no objection to his handing them to the Clerk and letting the Clerk keep them until the next session. and then the Son ator ea pro Sent them. but it is the established nsage of the Senate. decided on several different occasions. to refuse during nan excentivo session. or during a called session. to receive any business that cannot properly be decided by the Senate itself. and therefore it has refased to receive petitions which called for legislation. I have not had time to look up the precedents. but this matter was decided in the called session eight years ago. The book has j ust been handed to me. but I cannot turn to the case. as I have not been able to look into it. It has teu settled that the Senate will not at a session called by the Executive. when it has ao power to pass laws. or initiate laws. or take any step toward a law. receive petitions of a legislative character. If that is the practice of the Senate. it is not worth while for us to reverse that practice and open the door to the presentation of a multitude of petitions on a multitude of subjects. because if a petition is presented. it may be debated. its reference may be debated. the whole subjectmatter may be debated. and so a called session for a particular purpose may be prolonged to an indefinite extent. If the Senator is troubled about the custody of these papers and wants them eared for. I have no doubt. if he will hand them to the Secretary of the Senate. the Secretary will take good care of them. make a file o -them. and at the next stion. the Senator can preseut them in due form. All that I did was in pursuance of the precedent set the other day by the Senator from Maine. whors we look upon as the Nestor of the Senate on all thesequestions. When a petition was presented by some one near him praying the passage of a law to prohibit the importation of liquors for use as a beverage in this District. be made the point of order at once upon it that it Was legislative in its character. and. therefore. ought not to he received. The point of order was promptly sustained and the petition was excluded. and after that other petitions were also excidetd. I have petitions that I could psescnt. but. I felt myself bound by the rule. It is the old established rule of tie Senate. Now. I ask whether it is north while for us to open the door by the presentation of petitions for debate that may be unlimited. debate upon a great variety of subjects upon which we cannot act. merely to accommodate and relieve my friend from Wisconsin. I think he can relieve himself in a mrach easier way. We pass no resolutions at this session except such as relate to business that the Senate alone can decide upon. For instance. memberehip in this body is a qnestion entirely weithlin the jurisdiction of the Senate. and we may pass upon that question. and so with executive business. Therefore it is a simple question whether the Senate will reverse its order. I will find the precedent of eight years ago in a few moments.

S

Mr. SHERMAN

Unknown

SHERMAN

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

pro tetapore. The point of order the Chair will subnmit to the Senate for their determination. The question is. will the Senate receive petitions and memorials offered looking to legislative action

S

The PRESIDENT

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

03131873.txt

Is the message of the President convening the body. on the table T If so. I ask that it be read.

S

Mr. HAlILIN

Unknown

HALILIN

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

pro teerpore. The Secretary will read the proelamation. The chief clerk read as follows:

S

The PRESIDENT

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

03131873.txt

I was waiting for the law to be given us. the common law as I understand it to be affirmed. the usage of the Senate.

S

Mr. HOWE

Unknown

HOWE

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

I am hunting it up. There seems to be no index to the journal of a called session. and I have to look over many pages.

S

Mr. SHERMAN

Unknown

SHERMAN

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

Mr. President. Itill assume. as I did before. that the Senate ha decided asthe Senator from Ohio says it has decided. I still repeat that I think it was an erronecous decision. I do not think there is a letter in the rules of the body. I do not think there is aline in the Constitution which called for any such decision. If it suitcd the convenlene of the Senate to so decide. I do not know why they could not make such a rule. I do not think it would conflict with the Constitution for the Senate in executive session to refuse to reelve a petition. but. inasmuch as I do think the receiving of these petitions does not interfere with the convenience of the Senate. and the receiving of thom does promote the convenience of members. it seems to me the Senate would be hardly justified in refusing their assent. The Senator from Ohio suggests that I can make a file of these peti. tions in the Secretarys office and present them to the Senate next winter. I can do so. undoubtedly. but one thing isvery certain. that if I file them with the Secretary. before next winter comes around I shall forget all about them anA I never shall present them to the Senate. I do not know how much importance there may be in these petitions. I only know that certain citizens of Wisconsin sock to appreach the legislature. and have asked me to present their petitions to the Senate. Now. the Senator from Ohio says they may be debated. Whether the Senate will entertain debate upon them. is an entirely different question from the question I raise. I only ask that the petitions may be received. and either referred or laid upon the table. I do not care a cent which. If nobody has any objection to their reference. I take it they can be referred just as well as to be laid on the table. and if any Senator wants to debate the question.tbat right of debate. I take it. is within the control of the Senate. If they do not want to bear it. they will refuse to hear the debate. but because they refuse to hear the debate. I do not think that is a reason why they should refise to receive the petition. That is all I ask to have done. Of coirse. I do not want the Senate to reverse the conmmon law of the body to promote my individual convenience. I can stand the burden of these papers all through the recess. but as I do not see any good sense in the law. I do not see aiy use in giving up the question. The Senator says that the Senate may debate any question or consider any question which it can decide. Welt it Eau ecide the quesion of referring the petitious. It cannot legislate upon the petitions. but it can decide that question. dispose of the petitions just as effectnally as it can dispose of any seat here. If the Senators own rule is to obtain. it seems to me it will cover the reception of this petition.

S

Mr. HOWE

Unknown

HOWE

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

Mr. President. I raised an objection to the receptiou of petitions a few mornings since for the simple purpose of preventing asy act tending to legislation. and that was in accordance with the decision of this body. according to my recollection. some years ago when the matter was fully discussed. Papers were then referred. and some act beyond the reception of petitions. aeccording to my recollection. was proposed. hut. on discussion. the Senate dotermined that we were not a legislative body except wha we wxetc in session with the coordinate branch. the H1ouse of Reoresentatives. and it was wise therefore. I thought. to observe the decision of the Senate and maintain it. Ihavo noticed that sundry resolntions. when I have been out of my seat here. have been introduced and acted uponall wrong. in my judgment. We have now no earthly legislaI tive power. and I asked for the reading of the proclamation of the President for the purpose of inviting the attention of the Senate to the precise object for which we are convenedto consider such subjects as the President shall submitto us for our consideration. not for legislation. because we are in no sense now a legislative body. As a mere matter of form. as a mere matter of convenience. my friend says he would rather present his petitions and lay them upon the table or have them referred to a cenmnittee. That is one step tending to legislation. There were several bills passed by the House at the last session of Congress which I believe just ard meritorious. some of them affected the interests of my constituents. it would be very convenient for me to take those bills from the files of the Senate and have them acted upon now acd have them ready for the House to act upon when it shall convene in December next. and it would be only legislative action in a second degree. The presentation of the case would be the first degree. the action upon it would be the second. Now. it is wise. in my judgment. to maintain the precise position and character which belong to us. and that is. to discharge those duties which are only of an executive character. or. stepping one degree beyond that. those questions of privilege which relate to this body. and in which the Honse have no participation.

S

Mr. HAMLIN

Unknown

HAMLIN

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

Will the Senator allow moto ask him a question V

S

Mr. HOWE

Unknown

HOWE

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

Certainly.

S

Mr. HAMLIN

Unknown

HAMLIN

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

The Senator says it is wise to do so and so. If it is wise to do so and so. it is because the doing so will prevent some publie iiischief. Now. I wish the Senator. with all his experience. to explain what that mischief is.

S

Mr. HOWE

Unknown

HOWE

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

Well. I have tried to do. so. If you present a petition. it is an act tending to legislation. That is the first step. Then I may present a bill antI ask your action upon it. which is only one step more in the line of legislation.

S

Mr. HAMLIN

Unknown

HAMLIN

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

Will my friend allow me to ask him one more question?

S

Mr. HOWE

Unknown

HOWE

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

Certainly.

S

Mr. HAMLIN

Unknown

HAMLIN

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

It is whether when you came in here. and by a resolution appointed your committees. you did not take a step tending to legislationI

S

Mr. HOWE

Unknown

HOWE

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

Not beyond what was requisite for business of an executive character. Our committees were necessary to enable us to transact executive business. and we did not transcend what was required of us. and what was necessary in that direction.

S

Mr. HAMLIN

Unknown

HAMLIN

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

Will the Senator inform me what necessity existed for a Committee on Printing. or on Claims. or on the Revision of the Laws. at an executive session?

S

Mr. HOWE

Unknown

HOWE

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

Well. in relation to that matter. I do not know what business of an executive character may be presented to us that shall q o for consideration either to this committee or that. It is true we co know that nominations for collectors go to the Committee on Commerce. foreign appoittacnts to the Committee on Foreign Relations. and we know that the leading appointments go to various committees. I ask my friend from Wisconsin how he knows that there will be no sulbled which may come befbro each committee of this Senate of an executive character. I will take every covumittee ho hrs aliuded to. and first the Committee on Printing. How does he knew that there may not be matter here requiring the action of that committee? If you please. we have a treaty communicated to us. and the question of printing that treaty or of an extra number of that treaty will go necessarily. in an executive point of view. to that committee. And so of every committee in this body . there may be some subject which will go to it for its consideration. though I am well aware that mainly the subjects considered in executive session go to but a limited number of the committees. Now. I do think it best not to transcend the rule. I know how anxious Senators are to got rid of papers sent to them. I have petitions in my drawer. and I should like to have them disposed of. but I do not believe they ought to be presented. because that is the first step in legislation. and we now possess no legislative function.

S

Mr. HAMLIN

Unknown

HAMLIN

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

pro tempor. The Chair will state the point of order. This morning several petitions and memorials were presented. and. their reception not being objected to. were directed by the Chair to be referred to the appropriate oinuittees. Subsequently the Senator from Wisconsin offered two petitions. addressed "to the Senate and House of Represontatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled." To the reception of these petitiois the Setiator from Ohio objected. The Chair sustained the objection. The Senator from Wisconsin seeming to desire it. the Chair smibinits the question to the Senate. and the question is. shall these petitions be receivedI The question being put. a division was called for. and the ayes were six.

S

The PRESIDENT

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

03131873.txt

There are not enough to call the yeas and inays. and therefore I will not call them. I should like. however. to have the yeas and nays if I thought there was any reasonable prospect of obtaining them. bat I content myself with the knowledge that I have offered-

S

Mr. HOWE

Unknown

HOWE

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

and others. We will give thei yeas and nays.

S

Mr. DAVIS

Unknown

DAVIS

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

Does the Senator from Wisconsin demand the yeas and nays ?

S

The PRESIDENT pro tempore

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

03131873.txt

Yes.sir. I am so grateful to iy friends that they volunteer me the yeas and nays.

S

Mr. HOWE

Unknown

HOWE

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

The Senator from Wisconsin asks for the yeas and nays.

S

The PRESIDENT pro tempore

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

03131873.txt

It seems to me that if it were an original question I would say tha tho reception of petitions is no more legislabivo business than the appointment of the committees. and I should. if the question were a new one. vote to receive the petitions. but if the questien has been settled. and if the uniform rule has been otherwise. is I believe it has been. I shall vote to maintain the traditions of the Senate.

S

Mr. ANTHONY

Unknown

ANTHONY

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

As I understand the proposition of the Senator from Wisconsin. it is that the petitions may be received (uring this session in respect to matters wsich the Senate. as a siparate body. may take cognizance of and complete action in regard to.

S

Mr. BAYARD

Unknown

BAYARD

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

No. this is a petition addressed " to the Senate acd House of Representatives in Congress wsembled." There is no objection made to receiving petitions on anything that the Senate alone could act upon.

S

Mr. SHERMAN

Unknown

SHERMAN

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

The Senate are folly aware of what commotion was at one time created in this country by the bare propesition of refusing to receive petitions. It seems to me that the time occupied by tile reception of a petition. the stating of its contents. and its being laid upon the table. (for sch would be the course of businassrespecting it.) is too small to make it expedient or to make it wise in ally way now for any technical reason to avoid the reception of petitions. There is something in the right of petition. and I would rather not throw on the Senate or any nientber of the Senate the duty and the necessity of explaining why a petition was not received. when the answer would be. "Why not I it was a form to you. it was a substance of a right to me." The right of petition is something that I think either House of Congress or both Houses of Congress should sedulously protect. protect in its substance. protect even in the forms that are necessary to give sibstance. and therefore. while I am as anu ons as any one to neonie the business of this session to its logitiauto and strictly legitihate and necessary matters. yet I shall vote for the reception of a petition. although addressed to the Congress of the Untitled States. in order that petitions may be received. that they may be laid upon the table. as no action can be taken upon them at tim present session. rather than even in form seem to deny the right of petition.

S

Mr. BAYARD

Unknown

BAYARD

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

I was under the impression that at executive sessions we had received petitions and laid them span the table Without a reference. I thought that had been our practice. that whereas we would not act upon any petition. we had received them and laid them upon the table. but I may be in error.

S

Mr. ANTHONY

Unknown

ANTHONY

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

I am quite sure that my friend is thinking of this: We held an extra session once or twice of both Houses. ii which a rule was adopted that we wouli consider only certain mattersthe Senator will remember the ruleand under that. the sublject to which the petitions related being excluded. the petitions wer received and laid on the table. I do not think that has been done in a mere executive session of the Senate.

S

Mr. CONKLING

Unknown

CONKLING

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

It is very likely the case was as the Senator from New York suggests. I held in very great reverence tie right of petition. We do not know precisely what a petition is until it is presented. There certainly might be petitions presented here that would come within our present jurisdiction in the most limited form that we give to it. and we do not know precisely. when a petitioner approaches the Senate. what lie has to ask. But still. if the question has been settled. and if the established rule of the Senate has been as slated hy the Chair. I shall vote to sustain the old rule.

S

Mr. ANTHONY

Unknown

ANTHONY

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

I want to add one word to what I have said heretofore. The Senator from Rhode Island. as was to be expected. announces his purpose to adhere to the rule of the Senate once fairly established. What that rule is we only know from the information received from the Senator from Ohio and the Senator from Maine. The rule itself has not been read. There is a rule hearing somewhat upon this subject. which I find in the hook I hold in my handit used to be called the Constitutionand it declares that Congress. I know it does not say the Senate. but " Congress shall make no law respecting aln establishameit of religion. or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press. or theright of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government." not Congress. but "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." I understand that if Congress had passed a law saying that these petitions should not be received.it would have been in violation of that section of the Constitution. I suppose the Senate. by a rule of its own. can step upon the Constitution with impunity!

S

Mr. HOWE

Unknown

HOWE

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

I want to say only one word about this matter. If anybody wants to petition the Government. and the Senate or any other power should intervene. we can see the impropriety of that intervention. These petitions are not addressed to the Government. bit to one of the three coordinate branches of the Government. namely. the Congress. The Congress is not here. the Congress is absent. The Senate is here. Now. replying to the suggestion made by the Senator from Delaware. which way shall I vote in the interest of the right of petition?

S

Mr. CONKLING

Unknown

CONKLING

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

Before the Senator passes to that. will lie allow me to make one suggestion. and that is. that he never saw the Congress here and probably never will in his lifetime . but always (to make myself understood) let the petition be addressed to the Congress. and it is presented either to the Senate or to the House of Representatives. never to the Congress.

S

Mr.HOWE

Unknown

HOWE

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

But. Mr. President. if we do not know by sight we know by insight whether Congress ishore or not. It is a fact. absent or present. of which every court and everybody else is boend to take notice. The courts take judicial notice. everybody takes historical notice and actual notice that Congress is absent or present at the time. In that way we are bound to takenoticethat our jonrnals show affirmatively and distinctly that Congress is not here.

S

Mr. CONKLING

Unknown

CONKLING

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

I admit that Congress is not here.

S

Mr. HOWE

Unknown

HOWE

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

My friend admits it. Thin I inquire as I was going to. which way shall I vote in the interest of che right of petitionF Shall I vote thlat a petition addressed to Congress shall be presented. not to Congress. hut to the Senate holiing an executive session? If I do. what shall become of these petitions ? The rule of the Senate says that all eommittees fall with this session. During the vacation there are no eolniittees utless they arc expressly continued. and at the beginning of the next session there are no committees. because thay die when your hammer falls with this session. Before your hanmer falls no action call be taken upon them unless they relate to the business of this session. when nobody criticises their presentation. Afterward no action can be taken. because there is no committee and no Congress. Thus they fall. and what is to become of thmn i They are to go into the pigeonholes of these committees that are now. and they are to sleep. ouless. at the next session of Congress. my honorable friend or somebody else shall move that they be iken from the files. if they would be on the files. and reconmitted to theso committees. or referred to these comittees. Therefire. while I shotd be glad to vote in the interest of the right of petition. it seems to mo that I do so vote by reserving these petitions to take effect the first time that they can take effect. to be presented in the first ionment of the first hour when their effective presentation is possible. It seems to me that it would be as little in the interest of the right of petition to vote to present. them here as it wouhl be to vflto that they might be delivered to the 8ecretary of the Senate or to one of the officers of the Senate de bene csse.

S

Mr. CONKLING

Unknown

CONKLING

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

Do I understand the Senator to say that the committees appointed at this session fall with the adjournment of this session of th. SenateI

S

Mr. HOWE

Unknown

HOWE

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

Unqiinstionably.

S

Mr. CONKLING

Unknown

CONKLING

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

Unless continued by express vole.

S

Mr. SHERMAN

Unknown

SHERMAN

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

I have said unless they are expressly continued. A committee may be continued. I am going to ask. myself. that a committee shall be continued. the Committee on the Revision of the Laws. which my friend referred to. because both Houses have passed and the President has signed an act which requires the existence of that committee to do specific things in vacation. but the rule says that unless specially continued. they fall and die with this session. Therefore these petitions are presented at a tine when they cannot be acted upon. and they are to be laid away and buried. so that they can never be acted upon. unless. when a session of Congress does oecur. they are brought up mnd presented. Rence is becomes a mere question of their eastody in the moan time . that is all. If my friend thinks that it is sater. in point of custody. to ommli then to men who cannot net ihon them. who have nothing to t with them. who are under DO obligation to represent them. to ever have them appear again in the Senateif he thinks such bodies of men are better custodians of these petitions than those to whom they are committed to be presented when tisey are in order. that. as an argument of convenience. might be very well. M. HOWE. That is the whole argument.

S

Mr. CONKLING

Unknown

CONKLING

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

My friend says that is the whole argument. Then I have done. Mr. President.

S

Mr. CONKLING

Unknown

CONKLING

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

peo tempore. The Chair has stated the question pending before the Senate. upon which the yeas and nays have been ordered. and the rollcall will proceed.

S

The PRESIDENT

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

03131873.txt

I was absent. Will the Chair state the question agaim ? The PRMSIDENTpro fespore. The questionis this: This morning on the opening of the Senate various mineiirials and petitions looking to legislation were received inadvertently by the Chair. Afterward two petitions were presented by the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. HowF] addressed to "the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled." The Senator from Ohio [Mr. SuxRINAe] objected to the reception of the petitions. and the Chair sustained the objection. The Senator from Wisconsin seuiing to desire it. the Chair submitted the question to the Senate. and the question now is. shall these memorials be received? upon which the yeas and nays have been ordered. The question being takenby yeas and nays. resultedyeas 20. nays 3t . as follows: YEASMessrs. Alern. Allison. Eayard. Bogy. Casserly. Cooper. Davis. Dounhe. Fnton. Gordon. Hamilton o Texas. Howe. Merrimon. Morrill of Vermont. Ra som. Saalsbiry. Schurz. Spraguo. Sievonson. and Siumer20. NATStssrs. Alies. Backinghaam. Caldwell. Cameron. Cluandlor. Clayton. Conkling. Cnosevr. Dorsoy. Ferry of Conoecicut. Perry of Michigan. Fiulan.n. Fmliighuuyoei. Gilbert. Goidthwaite. Hamilton of Maryland. Hamlin. Iitheook. Ingall. Logan. MijCroory. Mitchell. Nowood. Oglesby. Pratt. Ramsey. Scott. S erman. Tiptoe. Vaduleighi. stil . Wirrigbt31. AIISENTMeosr. Anthony. Boreman. Brwnlaw. Carpenter. Crag n. Edrounds. Johinitou. Jones. Koly. Lewis. Morrill of Maine. Mortin. Pattersor. Robertseon. Sargent. Spencer. Stewart. Stockton. Thurman. West. and Windami.

S

Mr. FERRY. of Michigan

Unknown

FERRY

Michigan

M

03131873.txt

pro lesipore. The petitions are not received. and will be returned by the Secretary to the Senators offering them.

S

The PRESIDENT

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

03131873.txt

I will take back the petitions. and ask the Senate to receive the following resolution: Jtzolzed. That the Committee to Audit and Control the Contingent Epenoses of the Senate be continued and authorized to sit during the recess of the Senate. The resolution was considered by unanimous consent and agreed to.

S

Mr. HOWE

Unknown

HOWE

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

If the Senator from Illinois will allow me. I wish to present a resolution. that it may lie on the table : Lesolved. That AiiSXANDIi CA1DiWELL be. aid he is hereby. expelled from his seat in the Senate of tho United States. With the conseat of the Senator friom Illinois. I will state that I introduce this resolution with a view to save the time of the Senate. If the resolution now under diseission shall fall. it will then require that any resolution offered shall lie over oiie day. We may save a day by presenting it now. That such a resolution would be introduced. I entertain very little doubt. I desire to say that in offering this resolution I by io means abandon the report of the coiuiittee and the support of the resolution now under discussion.

S

Mr. ALCORIN

Unknown

ALCORIN

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

If tme Senator from Illinois will allow me a momont. I ask to be excused from serving upon the Committee on Claims. and that the Chair lie authorized to fill the vacancy.

S

Mr. DENNIS

Unknown

DENNIS

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

I do not see the chairman of the Committee on Clainis in his place just at this moment. but unless there be some good reason why the Senator from Maryland should be excused. I certainly shall opposo it.

S

Mr. WRIGHT

Unknown

WRIGHT

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

I fiud that I am on two other committees. the Committee on Connmerce and the Committee on Agriculture.

S

Mr. DENNIS

Unknown

DENNIS

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

The chairman of the committee is now here.

S

Mr. WRIGHT

Unknown

WRIGHT

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

I understand that the iname of time Senator freno Maryland+[ Mr. Dsixcs.] who asks to be excused. was placed upon that committee by mistake. The name being so similar to that of the Senator from West Virginia. [Mr. Dsvis.j who was intended. the mistake occurred in that way. I hope that the Senator from Maryland will be excused and the mistake corrected by placing the Senator from West Virginia on the committee. The question being put. Mr. DENIS was excused.

S

Mr. SCOTT

Unknown

SCOTT

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

Inove that the vacancy be tilled by appointment by the Chair.

S

Mr. SCOTT

Unknown

SCOTT

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

Mr. President. yesterday I was attempting to discuss before the Senate quesbions in reference to this testimony. siffing it to see whether it proved anything or nob. whether it was of such a character that the Senate could act upon it in the direction of coivictiug a inember of the Senate. Some discussion arose in reference to the legal questions involved. as to whether the act perpetrated rendered the election void. or whether it formed a basis for expulsion. Those points I reserved. giving them a mere passing remark. until I should get through the testimoniy. after which I did intend to discuss. in my feeble way. the question in its legal aspects. Now. after the majority of the committee have made this report. asking that the election of Mr. CDWELL be declared void and rendered nugatory. feeling somewhat doubtful in regard to the position. perhaps. one of them fires a back shot this morning and comes in with a resolution of expulsion. Hence. we Sad ourselves in this position A majority of the committee first resolves that the election is void. this is discussed for a short time. and then one of the majority comes in and says. "If the election is not void. I want him expelled." It reminds me a good deal of an old hunter who fired at some kind of an animal. He was asked a question in reference to it. and said. "I fired just so as to miss it if it was a calf. and hit it if it was a deer." That is about the position I fiud the majority of the committee in this morning. They are so desirous that a heavy blow shall fall upon this mans head. that. before the argument of the question is oiieluded. they commence to stick swords in both sides. so that if on is not deep enough. an incision shall be made in another place that shall strike the vital part. This does justify me in what I said yesterday. I said there was hardly a parallel to the manner in which this man had been pursued by testimony aud by witnesses before the committee. and yet I find today that Senators are so desirous of destroying one of their fellowinenibors that they attempt one mode first. and then resort to another dodge. in order that they may inflict an injury of a serious character. Mr. President. is there no such thing left in the human heart as tenderness ? Is there no such thing left in the human heart as generosiLy ? Is there uno such thing left as kindness and charity? Aie we so molded and our hearts so seared and steeled that we will resort to every maclination. to every argument. and to everything possible that we caii fiid according to pasliamentary tactics. that we may succeed in destroying a fellowman and sending him forth before the world branded as a sconudrel and a villain I Have we risen to such moral excellence in this day that we are contaminated by association with men whose course and conduct. since on the floor of the Senate. have been as generous and as proper as our own ? Then. sir. I havo lut this to say: that if a man is to have justice in the Senatechaiber hereafter. where an accusation is nmade. he must show himself as spotless as the driven snow. or else the moral exeelleacO of sense men and the standard which they have erected for themselves is so high that the SenMe niust he rid of a few mna at least. for. Senators. this will not stolp ]lare. Adopt the policy that has been proposed recently. and we stop not at one victim. I do not say tis in justification of wrong . I am not here to vindicate wrong. but I undertake to show to this Senate that the testimony in this ease was not such testimony as woild waiTant a verdict of "guilty" by a jury or by a court of Senators. The country has been flooded with sech reports in reference to this ease that at an can hardly have an impartial hearing by his peers. What do we see this morning I I beg the iamrdon of Senators for calling their attention to it. bit look at the imanner in which tie debate of yesterday is given to the conitry for the purpose of fixing their judgment. When the discussion first commenced in reference to the case of ir. CALDWELL. the argnsmeets niade against him were given by the Associated Press almost by colimns . but this moriing. after the debate of a whole day oit this question. we find in the morning papers. from the press report. four lines given to the argument I madeperhaps it was not worth four linesand more was given of the answer of the Senator from Indiana againstl him. in what he said yesterday. than was given of the argunment in his defense by myself and the Senator from New Jersey. I said yesterday morning that the feverish excitement of the country was such that it required a mais of nerve to stand against it. because the cases were prejudged before they were heard. bt that if the Senate would give their attetion to the testimony. and examine it. and make the application of the testimony to the law as thie law would be given in a court of justice. I myself have no doubt of the vindication of this man so far as the charge against him is conceruned. Now. Mr. President. let me continue the examination of this testimony . I hope I may be pardoned for it. because it is by this testimony we must try this Senator. It will nuot do for Sinators to rism in their places here and assert that the law is so and so without any examination of the testimony. You cannot pass upon this man by the lawe without the facts. You must examine both the testimony and the law and make the application of one to the other. in order to come to a proper judgment in reference to the case. I propose then to examine this testimony as applicable to the law in two points of view: first. as applicable to the law in reference to the questionof the validity of the election . second. in reference to the law in regard to expulsion. The first testimony that I will examine this morning is that of Mr. Daniel R. Authony. of Leavenworth. It was laid here. and properly so. too. for I take io exception to whati may be said in a fair and impartial mannier in reference to this case. that Mr. Daniel R. Anthony is the present mayor of Leavenworth City. That I do not dispute. I understand that he is. We are given to understand from the fact that ho is mayor of Leavenworth that his testimony maust be received. Now. although he is mayor of Leavenworth. I do not wish the Senate of the United States to consider his testimony on this account as better than the testimony of other men. but consider it in its proper light. take it and weigh it for what it is worth. and give to it the weight it appearsto beentitled to. It is true. Mr. Daniel it Anthony was an unfortunate man once. he stood before a court for thirty consecutive days. on trial for murder. still that does not depreciate the man. perhaps. yet it is true. I call the attention of the Senator from Miisstsippixebnf h gs his resolntion of expulsion this irning. to therecords of the PostOffice Department. in the city ofWashinglon. While the Senator from Indiana was speaking of the honorable Governor Carney the other day. reciting his virtues. and those of MayorAnthony. of Leavenworth. thereby assuming that they were men of such high character and spotless virtue. that their words are to be received as true against the testimony of other men and against the words of a Senator who has been honored by his State. I remembered the records of the PostOffice Department. This same Governor Carney. whose testimony the Senators bolster up by the testimony of Mr. Anthony. and whose testimony they use to bolster up that of Mr. Anthony. appears in a very different relation to his friend on the files of the PostOffice Department. By examining theso records they will find a statemet. signed byGovernor Carney. asking the removal of Mr. Anthony frot the postoffice at Leavenworth on the ground of varions charges of the vilest character. and it stands there today as a monument to that muaus virtue. The committee support tire testimony of Governor Carney by that of Mr. Anthony. and today the records show that Mr. Carney charged him with being a murderer and every vile thing that could be charged upon him. and I believe he was removed. or at least upon the eharges action was taken against him as pootmasterof Leavenworth. These are the "pinks of perfection" that are presented as models of virtue in connection with this ease. My friend from Indianassaid the other day that General McDowell. who was marshal of the Territory of Kansas. was not a witness to be believed. that no man would believe him. Why should no man believe McDowell when the committee believe Anthony. who was removed on Governor Carneys charges in regard to his vile character. and Mr. McDowell appointed in his place? Nevertheless. Mr. McDowoell is not a credible witness. but Anthony must be believed in all respects. Now. let us examine Mr. Anthonys testimony for a few moments and see what it is. I wilt read a portion of it found on page 138. He says he is mayor of the city of Leavenworth. and tells where he reside. I was opposed to the olectio of Mr. CAnsWai. . amid opposed to the election ol Mr. Carney. Question. Stats what yon knew. if anything. in regard to the use of money or other isproper insan by Mr. CALDWEi. or any of hi ifrionds. to proumneo votes to secure iles electien. Answer. I know nothing personally of the rse of a single dollar. I saw no money paid. All 1 know is from stateinuts mnads to tie by oither parties. Then afterwards he says: Question. Bid you ever have any conversation with Mr. CALDWeuL in regard to what that election bail eesthim. or nvthitg on thatl subject I Answer. Ie remarked to me. incidatally. I think last stumcr. is rogaid tothe cost of tie eleetioa. Question. What slid he say about it ? Answer. He said to me that it bd cost him about $r.0.00. Question. Where was that statoment made to you I Answer. That statement was tale to io When to was coasersing with me about my purchasing the Bulletin office. In Leavenworth. Now. Mr. President. I wish to continue the examination to see what further this gentleman says in reference to this matter. I call the attention of Senators to his testimony on page 150. Iit reference to this same conversation he testifies as follows: Qntisn. Whor was that conversation I Answer. I think it was in front of Newman and .tvens baik. Question. When was it? Answer. Along some timo previous to the purchase of the Bulletli.. Question. When was that? Answer. A year ago last fall. Question. That was the fall of 1871 1 Answer. Yea sir. Question. Are you sore about thatI Answer. Yes. sir. just previous to the purchase of the Blletie. Question. You say that this conversation with Ir. (JAL)WscLi. in which he said that he had puorchased these notes of Burke.atad that altogether his election hail cot him 660.000. occurred there and then ? Answer- Yes. air. Question. Can you name the mouth I Anower. No. sir. aestisn. About the month! mewer. It was some time after I purehased the Blues until I got. possession of the Bulletin. I saw him suvural time. Question. Was it about the tnt of December. 1871? Answer. Yes. air. Question. Yo testified before the committee at Topeka I Atiswe. Yes. sir Question. How did it happen that in that investigation you sail not a word Ablout Mr. CALDWELL having admitted the paymneat of $60.U00 Now see his explanation: Amwer. He never had admitted it ti me then. Mark. he swears here that he had this conversation with Mr. CATnWELL in December. 1871. and now ho swears that he did not tell it int Topeka because it had not been told him then. yet the investigation at Topeka was in February. 1872. This is the testimnony of Mr. Asstheny. He swears that the reason fie did not tell it at Topeka was that it had not been connunicated to him. anl yet lie turns around nd swears that it had been communicated to hine in 1871. whereas the investigation in Topeka was in 1872. He gives th place. the time. the date. atid mentions the purchase of the paper to show that he cannot be nistaken. . What further explanation does he give I kuestion. You say it was in the fall of 1871. before this investigaion. amd this too place in 1872 ? Now. he des he is caught. and this is his explanation: Answer- They nover asked ie about it. He first swears that the conversation had not taken place before the investigation at Topeka. hence le could not detail it there. Then he swears that the reason he did not. was because they did not ask hint the question. But let us go further and see whether they asked him the question or not. Hero is the examination of the committee at Topeka. and I call attention particularly to the questions asked hint in that investigation. which took place in February. 1872: Qnestien. Now. Mr. Anthony. where did Mr. CALDWELL keep his bank account In Leavenworth I Answer. I was told in the First National ank in Leavenworth. and in Phila. dolpila. Question. flew mnsh money did Mr. CALltWELL or Len. Smith. either or both. bring up to use i that senatorial eleetionI Answer. I dont bnoy. Question. Did they ose money directly. in your opinlonI mean money in kisldor did they drauw uainst soime fonsi somewhore I Answer. tioy did both. I think they did. That is my opinion. Question. W71et Ink or house did tiey draw on I Answer. I denit know. Question. Did you everhear any of CALD WLLS immediate friends say how mucli mosy it took to seoure CALDWzI..8 electio I Answer. I have heard. but cant say it was from his Immediate friends. In his testimony before the committee here. he swears positively that he does not know of onesingle cont being used. and then that Mr. CADWE0LL told hin he had used $60.000. which he says Mr. CALWi.L tol hint in December. 1871. He says he did not think to tell of it at the Topeka investigation because Mr. CALDWELL had not then told hins. but afterwarl. whoi he finds that will not do. he swears that he did not tell it at Topeka because he was not asked the question. In his Topeka examination he testifies that he believes money was need by

S

Mr. LOGAN

Unknown

LOGAN

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

and his friends. but when brought to the point says he heard it. but cannot say that he heard it from any of CALDWELLS friends. The question was put to blot directly. "From whom did you hear it T" and he said he had hoard it. but he could not say that it wio fromn any of Mr. CAL WELL8s friends. and yet subsequently he swears here that Mr. CALDWELL himself told hint out of his own month that lie had used.tll.00. Such is the rharter of Mr. Anthonys testimony. Now. I want to put this in a little different shape from what I did yesterday. Mr. Anthony there contradietshimself. In that statement lie shows that he is not worthy of belief. He contradicts himself. And Mr. CaLDWELL. a Senator of the United States. oa his honor aflirmas. in his written statement presented to the committee. that he never did directly or indirectly soseomne dollar for the purpose ofeorrnpting or procuring one single vote in the legislature ofthe State of Kausas. There is Mr. CALD)WErLLS statement on his hontor as a Senator. yet the Senator from Indiana the other day said that Mr. CALnWLs statiement could not b believed. Why V Because it was not under oath. Yoa can believe Mr. Anthony under oath although contradicting himself. bot you cannot belinve Mr. C ar.DWLL because he was not under oath. and I desire right here to make an explanation of that to the Senate. Mr. CAsaW:LL was willing to swar to his statement. I have it fromn Mr. CamwtELL. aid I kmnow it to be true. that his counsel. Mr. Cushing. told him not to swear to it. for the reason that it was onusual. and that a Senator was never required to testify before a committee. but his statement was taken on honor. He was instructed by his attorney not to do it. and that is the only reason which prevented him from swearing. It was not because he was afraid that he would perjure himself. but because the argument to him was that if the committee did not believe him when he made his statement on honor. they would not believe him under oath. Bia I say to my friend from Indiaa. and my friends on the committee who are prosecuting Mr. CArsaWELL. I do not know whether they would have believed him tnder oath or not. I do not know whether the Senate would or not. bht if they have any hesitancy in believing Mr. CAwLDwLLs statement. if the Senate requires or demands that he shall be sworn. it can yet be done. Still. I make no each proposition. I mention this merely beeause it proves that yon can produce testimony against a Senator and destroy him becanse you will not believe his own statements. Why ? His oath is not to he taken. his statement is not to be believed. bat the statement of the veriest scalawag or shyster in the land can destroy and despoil the reputation of a man. and he has no guard thrown around hint that willproteet himn against the assaults of such men. I am not yet through with Mr. Anthony. I want to examine his testimony a little farther. lHe swears. on page 151 of the testimony. that he and Mr. CaLDvELT were very friendly. or at least on friendly terms. When asked a question in reference to his feelings toward Mr. CALDWELL 10 says. speaking of Mr. CALDWELL. " Ile was very friendly to me." Afterward he said thatthoy were on good terms. aud then he was askel the question. "Is Mr. CALDWELL a gentleman in his interom5e ?" and Mr. Anthony replies. " Souotimes he is and then sometimes he is not." He says. further. that he was on sufficiently

S

Mr. CALDWELL

Unknown

CALDWELL

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

Now. Mr. President. this nian who is so loath to reveal secrets swears before the Committee on Privileges and Elections that lie never would have revealed this statementno. sir. never. it would have been scaled up forever in that generous breastif it had not been revealed by Mr. Smith before the committee only a day or two before. Afterward his own letter is produced. written over a yeor ago. before the committee had ever asked a qtuestion about it. in which he states: I know of my own knowledge of his (CALDWueLL8) paying so 1 authorizing large sums of money to be 1aid for votos. and Mr. CALDWELL knews that I knoew it. There is his statement over a year ago given to Clarke. and Clarke brings the letter here to the Senate and presents it to Senators in order that this invstigatien should be prosecuted. All I have to say about the virtuous Carney is this: lie either told it posiHtive pointblank lie in his letter. or ho swore one. es I slall prove. and if he would write a lie lie would swear ote. I should lile the committee to tell me how they could discover in which he lied. whether in his letter or ii his oath. il his letter lie says lie knows of his own personal knowledge of votes being bought end CALDWELL knows that he knows it. Now I will show yo what he swears. I beg Senators to recembr the language of his letter. that he ktiows of his own personal knowledge of votes being boght. and CADNWNc.eL knows that he knows it. which letter was produced in testimiony hore and made a part of this record. Ott page 196 Ito testifies as follows : By the OtIRAtAN : Questiun. What d you k ow of any payment Ce anymenbrofthielegislatreI Bu yeahknuw aiythiiug about it I State any ceitiotances titt yon knw ablut ts to the aytmen. or promise to pay aunythig. or anything that throws Light upon Chat .1ttestiol. Aser. Well. all I know Is what a isan would found upon belief. and bearing men talk. and ly acticns. and so on. tCt followed. Tits is his statement before the committee. yet in his letterhe writes that he knows of his own personal knowledge of CALDWELL payiug aull atthrizing large suis of money to be paid for votes. and then at this investigation he swears that all he knows is It what a mai would found upon belief". aud hearing men talk. and by actiots. and so oi. thatfollovecd." it otier words.rasors. How are yeiu goiirg to reconcile his letter with this patrt of his testimony I Did lie write the truth? Ifit did. he swore oalio. Did he swear the truth? If he did. lie wrote a lie. I am aware of what lie swears Mr. CALDWELL told him. but it does not explain this diserepancy. Now. lot us exa nino his reasons for thinkiug money was used in this election . for although in his letter he says positively he knows of his own persed ktwlodge it was used. yet in his testitonay he says li thinks it was used. and I call attention to the fat that he says lie as the strongest reasons lhr thinking that money was usd." You will find ils stateneit n trhe same page of the testimony in auswer to a qtuestion by the chairutan: Well. some of the trongest recsons I have. of cerse. for ttilking that money was used woret. first. thult flit tlu . iALDWEILL had no states lofere thalegisloture. lie had no etts ill tisso as a politician when te logielatae tliet. that when hi went to Tluta thee was semtnily anty|)ody for him. or that recognized him to be even a respeotable catudidate. and the ferthor fart that Air. CALDhWELL haw repeatedly declared that his eleotin citt him a largo sum of tmoney. lo says. first. that Mr. CALDWELL had no status before the legislatnre. I shall show befbre I conclude that he was entirely mistaken in that. Mr. CArDWEL luid a higher statics in Kansas than Mr. Carney. So far as reospetability. honor. and integrity are concerned. Bit let me first exatnino this letter a little ftrther. In it this man says he hopes. "isr th credit of Kansas and the United States Senate. that the matter will tot be passed over without giving Mr. CADWELL a chance to prove his innocenee. if he oven dares to make such a plea." If Mr. CnLuwEL dares to make such a plea. he hopes the Senate will give him a opportunity to do so. and yet he would not reveal anything that was within his bosom uttil it was revealed by otiters I Finally. ho concludes by saying: Ani example should b made for the general ood of the conity. Twill not dwell longer on thin them eU facts encoeotod vih it are too sickenitig. What facts are too sickeening I Is it the fac that lie had $15.060 of the money that lie had robbed Air. CALDWELL of? He says tie facts are too sickening. What fattsI When he comes to be examined. he does not know a thing of his own personal knowledge except in respect to the money that he received. Is that the fact that is too sickening I If not. what is it ? Now. Mr. President. what are we to infer from Mr. Carneys testimony and conduct ? That he is an honest man f Are we to believe that he is so virtaous and honest as he claims to be [will give you my version of it. Mr. Carney had blackmailed Len. Smith. the friend of Mr. CALDWELL. and Mr. CALDWELL. to the amount of $15.000. and he gave that httor to Mr. Clarke that Mr. Clarke might be onabled to blackmnil him also. as lie tried to do. to the amount of $15.000. The truth is there was a conspiracy organized between these two men and a few outside shysters to rob Mr. CeLDWEi. because he had money. It was only a part of the scheme that was being carried out when Clarke came to Washington City with this filthy letter in his poeket. that he might obtain money from Mr. CALDWELL in order to stop an investigation. as has bo n shown he attempted to do. That was the object and the only object of that letter. It was for the purpose of blackmailing and robbing Mr. CALDWELL still further. for who Carney comes to testify. he does not know anything of his own personal knowledge of what occurred at the time. He writes this letter. stating that he knows of facts within his own knowledge that it might be shown to members and frieMs of CLDWELL. hoping they might advise him to pay money to get rid of it. I know who it was shown to and the suggestions that accompanied it. It was a blackmailing operation. and no man can understand the whole thing without believing that to be the fact. and it destroys all the effect of what he afterward testifies CALDWEiLL told him. He further testifies that Len. Smith gave him a check drawn in his own name. but he says that that money ($7.000) was drawn and he never received it. but he weat with Mr. Anderson to his (Carneys) bedroom. that there Anderson laid the money on a table. and after a while came laughing to him and said sonebody had stolen the money. Now. the truth isfor we had the check before us. and it is made part of this testimonythe check was drawn by Len. T. Smith. in the name of Thomas Carney. Mr. Anderson. being one of the managers of the bank. went after bankinghours and drew the money. Air. Anderson swears positively that he brought the money back and delivered it to Mr. Carney. and that Mr. Carney took the money. Lon. Smith swears the money was drawn for the purpose of paying Mr. Carney $7.000. which Mr. Carney hail blackmailed him for after lie got to Topeka. and yet Carney swears he never saw it. Carney swears that it was laid on a table in his bedroom. (it is strange that it should go to his bedrooi.) and then Anthony comses in and says that Anderson told him that Sol. Miller got it. but Sol. Miller says he never got it. and never knew anything about it. Len. Smith swears to the contrary. and Anderson swears to the contrary. and all three of them contradict this man in this main feature of his testiiony. The evidence shows that his hungry passion for money was not satisfied with the amount that he had just blackmailed this man for. but that then. right on the verge of the election. he must blackmail him for $7.000 more. which Mr. CALOWELL never hoard of until it developed itself in the testimony. As was stated there. Mr. CALDWELL never know anything about it. never heard of it. This man Carney. a day or two before the election. commenced threatening that he would be a candidate again. made the threat to one of Mr. CALDWELLS friends. and that friend slips round and tells Lon. Smith. It was as perfect a rutnp job as ever was on earth to frighten this man Smith out of money. and they did it. and yet it is charged to

S

Mr. LOGAN

Unknown

LOGAN

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

that he was engaged in this transaction. when he knew nothing about it. This man. with ill his virtue. makes nse of these tricks and then comes here and makes his statements in order to oust a Senator friom his seat. He undertakes to reconcile his statement in his letter with his oath. and says it was merely in the freedoum of writing that he said fourteen members had been bribed. and that CALenWLL told him so and so in regard to Legate. He virtually admits that they wore lies. but says they were written merely in the freedom of writing. Well. sir. if a man is so free with his pen that he will place upon paper a charge against his fellowman. that ho bought or bribed niembers. that he used money in every way. and that he sickens at the very idea. and then when ho comes to swear about it says he made these statements merely in the freedom of writing. I can only say that it must be a very great stretch of freedom. He goes on and says that he heard Lon. Smith say that he had told CALDWELL that he. Smith. had involved CALDWELL in about $40.000. and that CALDWELL must stand by him. that he must not got alarmed. that he must get a Status in the legislature. that it mast be done by monoy in this way. You will find this testimony on pages 200 and 201. Mr. CALDWELL. in his statomont upon honor. says most positively that no such conversation ever occurred. Mr. Len . Smith under a solemn oath. swears that no such conversation ever occurred: and that nothing like it ever occurred between him and Mr. Carney. Mr. Carney says that Len. T. Smith told him that the Kansas Pacific Railroad Company had paid him $10.000 for his use in the election. Len. T. Smith conies forward and swears that it is a falsehood made out e the whole cloth . that he never made use of that language or anything like it. Carney says that Mr. Williaus. of Johnson Couity. said that Smith agreed to pay him to vote for CADWELL. Mr. Williams denies it. says io such thing ever occurred. Mr. CALDWELL denies it. and Mr. Smith denies it. Therefore we have the testimony of three against one. Mr. Carney says that after the election Smith told him that he had to raise some money to pay some members who were coining to the banquet at Leavenworth after the election was over. Mr. Len. T. Smith swears. on page 275. that no such conversation ever occurred. that he never made any such statement whatever. Carney further says that George Smith told him that ho had agreed to take up a note of Butlers for $850. I mentioned that matter yesterday. George Smith says that it is not true. says that he never said so. that he never had the note. and Butler also swears that it was not true. Then in every Material fact stated by this man Carney. except in regard to the amount paid him. witnesses of undoubted veracity have disproved his statementsin tolo. . Now I desire to read from a speech that was made by this man. Mr. Carney. at Leavenworth. after Mr. CALDWELL WaS elected United States Senator. This speech was made at a banquet over which Mr. Carney presided. I believe. Gentlemen of th legislature. ladles and gentlemen: The pleasant duty hastbee Impased pon me by time citizns at Leavenworth f welciinig yoa to the lesaitalties of this lity and to this festive hall. a tho name. then. and in behalf or the citizens of Loavenworth. withont regard to party. I give you a cordial You have been Invited here tunight that we may expresA to yo personally or jay. our eratitide. and our heart felt aeknowlodments for the high henor yenave conferred open one of our feliowcilizeno. We niI that we should make to you. and. througli you. to the people of this State . dim utlie aekowledgments to the istinguished favor conferred. We fel also lI.at we are called upon to assure yeu that we shall not selfishly use your generoes gift. We realize that the Scnaiorelect belongs to Kansas. ail that he owes equal duties to all the people of the State withoat regard to locality. and we neau to so coacel and assist him in every way we can while he liale the exalted position of representing Kansas in the 8Scato af thu United States. We desire to show the people of Kansas that tsavonworth is not local. is not selfish. and will not use your generous confidence to the dotriment of any portion of this young. grawing. vigorous Commonwealth. Ile goes on with his eulogy of the Senator. After that speech made at a banquet given to Mr. CALDWELL. So full of generous expressions toward him and toward the legislature. the next thing we hear of him he is writing a letter to Mr. Clarke in order to blackmail this man or have him turned out of the Senate. And this is the man we are tolMi must be believed. must be honored. and must be accredited. to the disgrace and detriment of other men. Now. in reference to the status of Air. CALDWELL. Carney swears he had no status with the legislature. On that point I wish to call your attention to a petition that was signed by the leading men of Leavenworth. (found on pages 315 and 316 of the testiniony.) asking Mr. CnnDWt.LLtobecome a candidate for the United States Senate. There was no such petitioning to Governor Carney. no one asking any other man to become a candidatefor this positiiim . hut here is a petition ofall the leading citizens of Leavenworth askiig Mr. CALDWELL to be a camididate for the Senate of the United States. The petition expresses confidence in him as a busiiess man. and an honest. faithful man. One of the best men in that town testified before our committee that at the election prior to that. he. with others. had solicited Mr. CALDWELL to run for Congress. and that Mr. CALDwEre. declined. Acd yet Mr. Carniey says Mr. CALDWELLhnd ao status in Kansas. had no popielarity there. was not known there. He had lived there for years. had done the transporting of freight for the Government of the United States for years through that country. and was known by nearly every one. He was a railroad mai. building railroads through the State and developing its resources at the sone time that this man Anthony was leading a mob to tear up his railroad. which he did do. He was known by the people of that conatry. and hal been for years. and yet we are told he had no statusa statement upon which my fiend front Indiana dwelt with considerable emphasis. Mr. President. I wish some man wotld tell nme what is meant by status in a communuity. unless it is position and influence. Mast a man. in order to obtain a states. be a brawlig. loudmouthed politician ? Must he hang around corners and talk polities every day? Is that what gives a man a status politically? I do not suppose the Semnator from Kasas claims to have a status ie this country equal to that of the Senator from Indiana. who is recognized as an able statesman. We cannot all be Wobsteis. in act. there has been but one Webster in this country. and it is not probablo that we shall have more than one at a time like him. What is meant by this expression I Does the Senator from Indiana mean that no man should be elected to the Senate of the United States unless he stands fiell six feet in his stockings. and can talk about all kinds of things of a political character. can abuse somebody. charge somebody with an offense. and plead that all virtue is centered in himself? Is that the status a man must have I Hias it come to this. that a nMerclnt cannot come to the Senate. that a lawyer cannot come to the Senate. that a physician cannot come to the Senate. that a teacher in the schools cannot come to the Senate. that a professor cannot come to the Senate. because lie has no status politically? Why. sir. sometimes men develop very suddenlyinto great men. Will the Seniator from Indiana tell me te political status of George Washington before the Revolution I Will he tell mo the political status ot U. S. Grant before the rebellion? I shoud like him to give us the political status of a great many men who hold seats in the Senate today. The people saw their genius. perhaps. or at least formed their owt estimate of it. and put them where it could be developed. If you could elect no man to office who had not a political status. you would make a monopoly of office. you would give it to nobody except the men who go brawling around the streets in order to get a political notoriety. We want business men in the Senate. professional men. statesmen. men who understand all kinds of business in this country. that they may represent the people correctly and rightly. It makes no differenee whethern man was ever heard of as a politician or statesman. If lie comes here and makes a statesman. it is no disparagement to him that he never waS heard of politically before. but rather the more to his credit. If no man was permitted to be President except one who had a political status in this country. the Presidency would be confined to a very few men . there would be a sort of monopoly in it. Perhaps it may be that some people would like to have a monopoly of tIme Senate. Now just let us agree that one man has as much right hero as another. no matter what he is or who he is. so that he is a decent and honest man. if the people through their legislature choose to elect him. Tluy must fix his status. it is not for us to fix it. And yet. forsooth. because Senator CALDWELL Was engaged in business. was a successful business man. more so than almost any man in Kansas. therefore lie is not entitled to be a Sonatorl Why? Because he had not taken up his time for years before in politics. but had devoted hiiiself to business matters. I hope such an argument as this will be treated exactly as it deserves. certainly it is a strange argument to be used in a case where you are trying a man. where his rcputa$ion. his all. is at stake. Mr. President. while on this question of status I wish to call the attention of the Senate for a moment to a speech made by a friend of Mr. Sidney Clarke in the legislature that elected Mr. CALDWELL. Mr. Clarke and Mr. Carney thought that Mr. CALDWtLL. had no status in the legislature. but when the name of Mr. Clarke was withdrawn. and Air. CALDWELL was about to be voted for. Mr. S. M. Strickler. the particulatr friend of Mr. Clarke. made a speech. from which I read the concl iding paragraph: The duty then devolved upen the friends of Mr. Clare of maling a choice he. twcn Mi. CALIwFLL and others who were voted for yeaterda>. That choice was quickly and resolutely made. They recognized in 31r. OLDVEL a gentleman of character and eapacity. whose culture. energy. and iotogrity as a tn. snil whose sincerity nM a republiCa. etliltntly fitted hl for the high atnd honorable position of United States Senator. They therefore resolved to give him their nitted and cordial support. This is the statement of a friend of one of Mr. CALDWRLVS opponents. yet he speaks of Mr. CALDWELL as a gentleman of culture and capacity. as a man of energy and integrity. and therefore they mnade him their choice in preference to other men who were before them as candidates. The Senator from Indiana dwelt the other day upon a resolution that had been introduced in the house of representatives of Kansas by a man named Fenlon. It is true. us he said. that a resolution was introduced requiring every memher to be sworn. Now. what is the history of tht as shown by the testimony ? I feel too much wearied to read the testimony to the Senate. but I remember it distinctly and I will state it correctly. Mr. Fenlou was electel from Leavenworth County. whore Mr. CA.DWELL resides. There were but nineteen.democrats in that legislature. and Mr. Fenlon was one of their leading men. Although a democrat. he was a friend of Mr. CALDWcLL. and states ia his testimony. as the reason why he voted for Mr. CALDWELL. that it was impossible to elect a democrat. and his constituents were unanimously in favor ofMr. CALDWELL. Why did he introduce this resoltion I Mir. Fenlon states that Ie occupied a room adjacent to Mr. Carneys room. (where all this devilment was being done. according to Spriggs and Carney.) and testifies that li was there mixing with these men. talking with them all the time. but he saw no money nsed. knew of none bing used. knew nothing about it. But he said men outside had started a rmoir that. money was being used. anti lie introduced this resoltion.not because lie believed it. but because the rumors outside were such that lie wanted an opportunity given to the members of the legislature to vindicate themselves. That was what Mr. Feoulon did it for. and Mr. Fonlons testiniony shows that about twothirds of the members stood up and took the oath. aut those who did not take if. were not the friends of Mr. CALDWLL. but most of them scattered their votes on other candidates. One of the very members who refused. stubbornly. to take the oath. was on the stand. and swore that he was the enemy of Mr. CALDWELL. and voted against him. These are the facts in reference to that. The resolution was not introduced hecause corruption existed. but because there had been talk about it. and Mr. Fenlou. being a friend of Mr. CALDWELL. wanted the legislature to purge tiemnsehtes before they voted.

S

Mr. CALDWELL

Unknown

CALDWELL

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

Will tlii Senattr be good enough to state again. so that I can understand. how many of those who took this oath voted for Mr. CALDWELL.?

S

Mr. CONKLING

Unknown

CONKLING

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

I cannot state how many. but I am able to say that a largo majority. ne.rly twothirds of the members of the legislature. took the oath. and that most of the men who did not take it were those who scattered their votes.

S

Mr. LOGAN

Unknown

LOGAN

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

And did not vote for Mr. CALDWELL?

S

Mr. CONKLING

Unknown

CONKLING

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

I do not say they all did not. bot they were the ones who scattered on different meon. The majority of those who voted for Mr. CALDWELL stood ip and took the oath. Mr. Fonlon was a democrat. and he gives the reason for offering the resolution. he being a friend of Mr. CALDWELL. and lie was here as a witness before this committen. -He said they could not elect a democrat. and he voted for

S

Mr. LOGAN

Unknown

LOGAN

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

because lie was elected by a constituency who were unanimously for Mr. CALDWELL. and hedid what lie coukl for him. and lie proposed the resolution to have this oath taken. On his examination he said that runmors were rife that money was being used. as ruinurs always are about elections at that place. and he introduced the resolution. that members might purge themselves before they voted. and not because lie believed the rumors to be true. I ought to say further. that the declination to take the oath on the part of those who did not take it. was not on the ground of their corruption. but on the ground that the legislature had no right to require any such oath . and in point of law I thiklr they were correct. Their objection was not made because they were bribed. but because they had already taken an oath to support the Constitution as menibors of the legislature. and they would not take any special oath ia connection with a matter of this kind. The idea that such a thing as this should be urged to prove that a man was elected by bribery strilkes me as being very strange. Bet. air. there is nothing strange in these days. Everything that will bear against this man is resorted to. Witnesses of all kinds are brought here to testify against him. and to blacken his character. I am sure I find no fault with members who take the other side of this question. inasmuch as they believe they are right. and are as honest and candid in their belief as I am in mine. and they are entitled to use all legitimate and proper arguments to sustain their views. Bun I think seine of their argutments are calcnlated to boar severely and improperly upon the individual who is arraigned before the Senate. and I think it very unfortunate at least that such arguments should he used in this connection. Mr. President. I do not desire to detain the Senate much longer. In fiaet I mn so weak. from a cold that has setted on coy lungs. that when I begin to talk I soon get exhansted. and perhaps if t were to continue l eongr I should be boring the Seuate. In examining this testimony. I could take a whole day in unraveling the facts contained in the testimony. and I could show yoh beyond all doubt that there never was sucll mass ofstuff thrown together in a ease before this Senate or any tribunal. for the purpose of destroying the reputation of a mnan. I know it is connon to tako testimony that comes out before our committees. and throw it before the country in the most prominent way in the newspapers and tix the opinion of the people. without ever giving to them tie deihese. I have no idea that the people of the country will ever see the defense of Mr. CALDWELL . I have no idea it will ever be given to them. aund that is oe reason why the Senate should stand between this man and the torrent that is pouring down against hini. and protect him if it is right and just to do so. Before I leave the testimony there is one thing further to which I will refer. to show tme animus of one of these witnesses. I allude to Mr. Anthony. The reason why Mr. Anthony was so spiteful at the time Air. CALDWELL wUs elected was this: Ho got sip a meeting in Leavenworth City. whore Mr. CALDWELL lives. a few nights before the elect ion. iu order to get resetl tions passed repudiating Mr. CALDWELL. but Mr. CAL)wHrrs lriods went intote hull. and. being i a majority. voted him down. elected a chairman. and passed resolutions indorslug Mr. C oLW L. a md recmiimending his election is United States Senator. At the sic tine they passed a resolution in regard to Mr. Anthony. which is as follows: Resolved. That D. IL Anthony is nat an exponent of our feelings. nor representative of bur imteros.t. and we respeetfiully aek the legislature iit to consider him as such. and we now beg leave to inorm tie legislature that ill reports of socalled "enthusiastic meetiugs in Leaoaworthin opposition to MXr. CALDWELL are bogus and faso. I merely call your attention to that to show that Mr. Anthony was thwarted ill his designs. nui went to the legislature with a bait feeling toward Mr. CAL DWE.LL and his frionds. for the reason that he thought lh ought to govern amid control the feelings of the people of the city of Leavenworth. and that only shows a part of the malice he has toward Mr. CALDWELL. Mr. President. what is this question ? It is simply this. did Mr. CALDWuELL procure his eleetio by bribery ? If he procured it by bribcry. he munst have bribed somuebody. or at least he must have had a kitowledge of soie man being hsribul. Do the Senators. judging from the testinuony in this case. beltove that Mr. CALDWELL bribed any menber of that legiseltnr If they do. they believe it upon testimony that would not convict a uman of the slightest misdeumeanor in any county town in the Utited States. You could not take this conflicting testimony. of slh a character as it is. before any judge and jury. ana convict for keeping an open tipplinghouse on the Sabbathday under the statutes of some of the States. There is no jury that would not say that the conflict was so great that the case was. at least. doubtful as to what was done at the timo charged. and that would acquit. If any iiseinbr of the legislature was bribed. I want some one to tell me who he was. They Eave all sworn that they were not. Mr. Carney and Mr. Anthony both swear that Mr. CALDWELL told them that he had bribed a man by the name of Bayers. It is very strange that they both center upon one man. who cannot be found anywhere. and who has nt been heard of for nearly two years. and no oue knows whether he is living or dead. They pint i on seine absent aman. Neither of theni states that Mr. CxLDWLL ever told him of any solitary mai. who can be found. or who today has any existence. that was bribed. Both center upon a man who is unknown. who cannot be discovered. who cannot be found. aud this testimony is contradicted by the other witnesses who have been sworn in reference to it.

S

Mr. CALDWELL

Unknown

CALDWELL

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

I should like to ask the Senator whether the case shows anything upon this point: When Mr. Buyers was mentioned by these witnesses. did they know that he could not be producedthat he was absent ?

S

Mr. CONKLING

Unknown

CONKLING

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

I do not know that they knew it. I have only the geneial rumor and the statement of the witnesses that "we cannot fud him." and that " rio One has been abl to find him." They must have known it. as he has been unheard of so long. they could but be cognizant of the fact.

S

Mr. LOGAN

Unknown

LOGAN

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

Is there anything in the testimony which shows that he had notoriously gone before that ?

S

Mr. CONKLING

Unknown

CONKLING

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

Thu testimony shows that no one knows where the man is. whether he has an existence or not. and this has been known for a great leigth of time. The testimony shows this fact.

S

Mr. LOGAN

Unknown

LOGAN

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

Will the Senator allow me a moment?

S

Mr. MORTON

Unknown

MORTON

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

For what purpose?

S

Mr. LOGAN

Unknown

LOGAN

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

On that point. But I will not press my request if the Senator is not willing to yield..

S

Mr. MORTON

Unknown

MORTON

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

I am as generous as a man can be in yielding the floor. I always yield i but I have not got through my statement in reference to this scan yet.

S

Mr. LOGAN

Unknown

LOGAN

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

The Senator very kindly tolerated the question of the Senator from New York. because it was in harmony with his speech. I simply desired to make a remark in regard to that man Bayers. I will pass it over. however.

S

Mr. MORTON

Unknown

MORTON

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

" Well. now. Mr. President. I do ot think that is generous. I merely asked the Senator for what purpose he wished me to yield. I then yielded to him to say what he pleased. I said I would be generous. Since I took the floor yesterday at one ocloek Ihave at no time. for any purpose. refused to yield to any Senator. 1 do nat know of any one who more willingly yields the floor than I usually do. But on that paint I will say that. although Mr. Carney had written in that letter thai there were members bribed. and although he made the statement that he know it. and that CALDWE LL knew it. and could name them. when he comes to name them. he does not know. of his own knowledge. a solitary one. and the only thing be ever hoard of was tathe says CAinwiLL in looking over ab Vieinreandibouk. told him that he hadpaid Mr. Bayers. Air. Bayers was gone. and had beni gone ever since the elction. He cannot be found. When Mr. Anthony swore that CALDWELI told him he had bribed area. we asked him what nan. and he replied. "Mr. Bayere." It reminds me a good dol of a mn who. to put it in a mild form. had degradation enough in his heart to swear against a dead man. and a better luau than ever he was. I mean old Thaddeus Stevens. one of the noblest Romans of them all. lIe was dead and cold and silent in his grave. when a man hero undertook to swear against him. when he dared not do it against any living man. So it is with these men. They find something to say about a man that is gone. and no one knows whether lie is living or dead. They cannot find any living mnac to punt their fingers on. they cannot name any man who has any existence that Mr. CALDWELL stated that he had ever paid money to. fs not that so I This is avery convenient mode. I think. if I were making up a story. and did not want to be contradicted. I would likely select a dead man to lay it on. or some man who could not be found. "Dead men tell no tales !" Men that are gone far off are usually not heard from very soon. It is very convenient. whou you have written aletter. stating that which you cannot stand by and cannot swear to. to name some man who is far off. or who is dead. as the one that Mr. CALDWELL told you somothing about.

S

Mr. LOGAN

Unknown

LOGAN

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

With the Senators permissioi. I should like to ask him a question.

S

Mr. STEWART

Unknown

STEWART

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

Certainly.

S

Mr. LOGAN

Unknown

LOGAN

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

Is there any testimony on the point of bribery. except that of Mr. Carney and Mr. Anthony. that Mr. CALnDWELL said to them that he had bribed Bnyers. and is not that merely hearsay V

S

Mr. STEWART

Unknown

STEWART

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

That is the only testimony there is exoept that contradicting it. I say that there is not a scintilla of testimony which is rot borne down by different witnesses. and a majority of them too. including Mr. CALnWILrt himself. so as to show it unworthy of belief. except the statements ii reference to Mr. Bayers. Mr. Carney says

S

Mr. LOGAN

Unknown

LOGAN

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

trld him that he had paid Mr. Bayers $2.500. and Mr. Anthony. following Mr. Carney in the saietrack precisely. swears that CA LNWELI. told him the samenthirg. Mr. CALInWELL says he never told either of them any such thing. and all the testimony goes to show that it was not true. Mr. IBayers has not been heard from. he is gone and cannot be found. After all the parade made by Mr. Carney in regard to the number of men that he could name who received meonoy. the only ono be mentioned was Mr. Bayers. and he only mentioned that as coming from CALDWELL. There is no testimony as to bribery of any other man except that which is denied by the testimony of the men themselves.

S

Mr. CALDWELL

Unknown

CALDWELL

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

Is there aiy testimony. whether denied or not. of any person who knew of the fact himselfi except what he heard somebody say ?

S

Mr. STEWART

Unknown

STEWART

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

No. sir. there is no testimony hero anywhero. from any solitary mar. that Mr. CATDWELL ever offered a man a dollar or over agreed to pay a dollar. except heatrsay statements. such as the statement of that man Spriggswho I showed was unworthy of beliefwho said CALDWELL told him in his room the Tuesday before the election that if he found any man who wanted money to refer him to Leo. Smith or hiniself. I say unless testimony that has been broken down and is not worthy of belief is to be relied on. there is not a particle of evidence that shows anysuch thing. and there is no testimony which shows that Mr. CALDWEL. ever offer0da man a dollar. Hence. I say there is no reliable proof sustaining the charge of bribing a member of the legislature. It is mere inference and nothing else. I say. therefore. the testimony here relied upon. contradicted as it is. unworthy as it is in every respect. would not convict a man for selling whisky on the Sabbathday before a jury in any State under any instructions from a court that understood the law of the country. On this point a question arises of a legal character: Was the payment of the money to Mr. Carney a bribe? Was that payment of such a character as to be considered as corrupting the legislature to such an extent as to vitiate the election? Lot us see how that is. What is the testimony? Mr. Carney swears (and I call the attention of the Senator from Indiana and the Senator from Mississippi to the fact) that he was not a candidate for the United States Senate. He swears that he did not intend to be a candidate for that position. He also swears that he told Mr. Len. Smith that he did not intend to be a candidate under any circumstances. Do I not state the evidence correctly I Is not that the fact? If I am disputed I will turn to his testimony and read it. But alter swearing that. he says this to Mr. Smith: I have spent a good deal of money heretofore in canvasses. I have involved myself very largely .I cannot go inte this thing in any way whatever unless I should be remunerated fcr it. My friend from Indiana says ie was hired not to be a candidate. and thinks that is buying votes. Hiring a man not to run is buying votes ! Why dots h say so? liBecase. as he says. if there were only three or fona candidates you might buy off all the candidates. and then you would have a monopoly of tie election. I was very sorry to hear my friend from Indiana use that argmuent. because it goes ore the assniption that nobody but a candidato can be elected. I thought the legislature might elect whom they pleased. I thought they might accidentally fall on ocje of their own number and elect him. but. according to the argument of the Senator from Indiana. if you buy the candidates there is nobody else in the way. and the legislature must elect you. They cannot vote for anybody else. I did not know before that that was the law. I am perfeCtly astounded to hearit now. I do not believe in any such doctrine. but I know so little. and other men know so touch. that I do not like to dispute with them. Yet it is a new feature. at least to mc. I do not think there is any legislature in this country where the members feel themselves compelled to elect any paricalar individual. They may have their choice. may elect hib. but they are not compelled to elect any one. Therefore Such an argument is perfectly worthless. in my judgment. and ought not to be used. But Mr. Carney said to Mr. Smith that for $15.000 he would not be in the way of Mr. CALDWELL. anti would give his services to asisst his election. Let us see what that means. Is that corruption? Is that. bribery? The Senator from Indiana says it was bribery. He says that through Carney CALDwtLL bribed Carneys friends if] the legislature. Now. lot me put a case to test whether that is so. Suppose a mon is a candidate for the Senate and he Says to a friend. "Here. you have som friends in the legislature. I wish you would go up there ard work with your friends and try to got thorn to vote for me." The answer is. "I will do so if you will give me a thousand dollars as payment for riy services." That is done. but the man who is to got the money does not go himself but sends a friend. and that friend goes there and uses his influence with his friends on account of this ether nImi to procure his election. Will you say that the members who vote for that candidate are bought with that money given to a third man. but never received by thont? Cae any one say aIry such thing? If those men in Kansas were bribe]. Mr. Carney must have used some of the $15.000 to buy their votes. but lie swears that lie diid not use a dollar in that way. Will any man show ne thai one single dollar of that $15.000 paid to Mr. Carney was ever usod with any individual in the legislature to purchase or influence his vote? Nowhere in the testimiony does it rcprear tht a sorlitary man was influonced on account of the morey paid to Mr. Carney. If the members of the legislature were nut influenced by that money. they were not bribed by that nioney. I smy. then. that money was not a bribe to any members of the legislature. We re talking about them and about what the evidence proves as to them. ard I assert that it does not show that any man in that legislature was influenced by that money. But the Senator from Indiana says. because Governor Carney went to that legislature and used his influence in favor of Mr. CALDWELL. therefore his friends were all hribed by Mr. CALlWELL through Governor Carney. That is a now process of bribery. I will put another case. to illustrate more clearly the absurdity of this preposition. There is no difference between paying a man money for his vote and promising to give him an office for his vote. I think every one will agree that in contemplation Of 1lw one is just as iuch a bribe as the ether. True. one stails out in a. little bolder relief their the other. one shocks the moral sonse. lperhaps. a little more than the other. hut. legally speaking. they are eth alihe. Now. suppose the President of tho United States. being a candidate for reelection. should appoint as minister to England a man who was a candidate for the Presidency. in order to get him out of the way. and he should go oL1i of the way by taking that olficn. and the Presidet in power be reelected. Would my friend from Indiana say that the election is vitiated? Will he say that it is void for that reason? Suppose the President. under the same circumstances. should appoint i man Chief Justice of the United States to get him out of his way as a candidate for the Presidency. will he say that it is a corrupt act. that it is a fraud by reason of which the election is void. because this man has been bought with an office? Suppose the President should turn out a Postmsrer.Geeral in order to satisfy a candidate for the Presideiry. and. as soon as ho was turned out. that other candidate should withdraw friom the field. would my friend from Indiana say that the reelection of the President was void? I do not say any such thing as this has ever been done. but suppose such things should be done. would they make th election void. would they render the election nugatory ? Surely no man will say so for a moment. and no man would believe it for a moment. yet the reasoning of the Senator would go to that extent. and would adopt that as a rule. I do not mean by this. and I do not wait tho Senate to understand me as justifying or recomnending any such thing. but I am speakig ngf tie matter i . a legal aspert I cin. spe ]cng of the etect tn([ force of certain acts. so far as the law is concerned. To bribe is toprocure a mau to do a certain thing for a sum of money. or for some other consideration. You cannot bribe a man unless you agree with him that a certain thiig shall be done on your part which compensates him for that which he does on his part. Ini this case. to whom was the bribe given? It must have been to a member of the legislature or there was no bribery. Suppose no member of the Kansas legislature had ever heard any rumor that money was being used. had never had a proposition of any kind or character made to him. but that every outsider. every shyster. had his pocket full of uoney. will the Senator from Indiana tell me that the election will be void on account of the corruption of the legislature in that case? It is they that must be corrupted. not outsiders. If you are to make the action of the legislature void. you must prove that the legislature was corrnpted. not those outside of it. You are not dealing with the acts of

S

Mr. LOGAN

Unknown

LOGAN

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

particularly. you are dealing with the acts of the legislature. The question is whether their acts are void. or are not void. In order to make their acts void. the illegal thing must be done. Lo them or by them. and not to and by outsiders. That is the rule. Now let me go a little further with the argument of my friend from Indiana. He says that the bribing of one member of the legislature. although I assert that the proof does not show that any 0an was bribed. vitiates the election. Sir. that is not the rule here. That is the rule under the English statutes. but it is not the rule in our country. and no man will maintain it. and it caiaot be icainlained fur t moment. I will show in a few words. as my friend from New York did yesterday. the absurdity of the proposition. Suppose we make this rule apply to elections ia this country. say the election of members of Cougress and the President. and let us see where it will carry us. A man may be elected to Congress in his district by ton thousand majority. and if some scoundrel comes up and swears that he paid $tOt to a man to vote for the Successfii candidate. that villain can destroy his election and tnre him out of Congress according to the theory of my friend from linliatta. Suppose a man is elected to the Senate. On this theory I cau take $5.000 and unseat any member of the Senate if you adopt this rule. and how will I do it? According to this theory. no matter what a Senators majority may have been. all that would be needful would be for sono enemy of his. at the time of the election. to go and offer a bribe to some member of the legislature and thereby secure his deteat. In this way you put all the elections in this coantry into the bends of 8coundrels by the theory which the Senator advocates. If I am elected to the Senate today by one hundred majority by the legislature of my State. tomorrow some villain may come and swear before a committee that I offered him $2.500 for his vote. or that . eimpowered him to offer some otler man in the legislatare $2.500 to vote for LOGA . and that ho agreed to do it. and out I go. Why. sir. eo this doctrine $5.000 will unseat any man. I can go out among the shysters upon the streets here today and blacken the repultation of any mau in the Senate for less money than that. and you all know it. Thu very doctrine advocated here today against Mr. CALDWELL would destroy the reputatiou of any man on this floor. and would put the reputation of every man here into the hands. net of gentlemei. but of scoundrels atd villains. Now lotuas go a little further with this doctrine and suppose it to be applied to a presidential election. A President is elected by a large majority. and one of his elctors in the State of Illinois is offered a bribe cf $5.000 to cast his vote contrary to the way the pcople who elected hint expected hia to vote. and he accepts the bribe. That President has a majority of a hundred electoral votes. but when the votes are counted in the two Houses the evidence shows that one elector bus been bribed. That. according to the theory of my friend from Indiana. would vitiate the presidential eleetion if you carry the priiiiple out and apply it to all elections in this country. Why. sir. the doctrine is monstrous. It is the doctrine of the dostreetieuists. that woild destroy the foundation of our institutions. Instead of perging the Senate of bad men. that doctrine would purge the Senate of good men as readily as it would of had men. 0. but. he says. these men have sworn that they heard somebody say that somebody else told other persons that somebody had been oifered so much money. Now. I appeal t tlte kuowledgeof Senators here. do you believe that there are not Senators in this chamber. as honest men as God ever breathed the breath of life into. whose votes cannot be tampered with by all the money that ever was coined. and yet do you not know there are shysters outside and around these lalls who pretend every day that they can control their votes in reference to questions pending here? Is there a Senator so ignoraut as net to know that there are men in this town who pretend every day that they can control the vote of almost every Senator in this chamber. or of almost any member of Congress ? Suppose one of them makes some man believe that who wants an important bill passed. and makes him pay him a large sum of money because he alleges that he controls certain votes. and writes it down. " I will give you so many votes ." he has found. perhaps. in conversation with somebody. how those members are going to veto. and he says. " I will give you so many votes." namag themho might name the Senator from Indiana. he might name .yself ba might name this whole committee. it makes no difference whom lie namesand that mans bill is passed. Ile believes to the day of his death that he paid that money for those votes. Why? lIe does not go to those who gave the votes. but he paid the money to this man on the representation that he would control the votes. and the man las made him believe that he did control them. According to the theory of my friend from Indiana. if you were to call hero that man from seine faroff State. not acquainted with things here in Washington. and bring him before an investigating committee and swear hii. and ask hin. "Did you over pay money to got a bill through Congress 11 ie would answer. " Yes. sir." Whoa asked. "How iunch " he would say. "Perhaps $10.000." Then he would be asked. " To whom (lid you pay it " and lie would aswer. "For the votes of so and so." "Did you pay it to them " 0. no." Well. to wholmu " To such a mai." That nian would be ge and yot could not get him. and yet the members reputations woiud be blackened and stained. andrmain so forever. The country woul be made to believe that those men Lad been bribed. when they hal never heard of such a thing in their lives. Upon the theory of my friend frotti Ind iana.. every mian may be rained in that way. if hearsay testimony is to be taken to despoil a mnaits reputation before a commiittee of curs. I ain sorry our coininittees altow such testicimy as they do. because the reputation of any manin may be ruined irretrievably in that way. It is a thing that certainly should he very well giiarhcd. at least. so that me may be protected. I do not mean protected in wrong. but that their reputation should not suffer tnless they be guilty of sone olltnse. I insist. then. that you cannot declare this election void and useat

S

Mr. CALDWELL

Unknown

CALDWELL

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

nit tile grounds hero alleged. My friend from Indiana said yesterday. and the papers stte this morniug. that I have changedi my opiniou. He told us tint the coimittee favored the view that the carhge alleged. if proven. would ronder the election void. I agree that the incliiation of the mind of the coitinittee was in that diroetion at the tine the question was considered. auld yet there was doubt in the mind of nearly every one. The eomimittoo. howeovr. inalo the report which has been presented by the majority. Every nin investigated for himiself. The inclination of iuy iuiud at the time was in that diroetion if the tesiuiony was sufficient. but. whei I came to examine the question. I found that tiere was but one precedentinthe Congressof the United States. and on that occasion the Coimittee on the Judiciary took grounl against the views of the majority report here inele. Mr. Butler. the eliirman of that cotnuittee. demounnced the idea that tie clection was void. and said that the charge weit in a different direction. When I found that to be the only precedent. after further examination I came to the cenclusion tha the law was against this resolution. and that it could only rest on the statutes of Englad. by which we are not governed. But as I said. sir. in order that this mant may be eaught on one iook or another. a resolution of expulsion is iow offered. hat is a good deal like fishing fur buffalo. You imake wst you call grabhooks. andi have them reach out in every direction so as to catch hiiiii oi every side. These men seem to be thirsty for blood. and hence there is one resolution from the coionmittee declaring him not elected. and anothor resolution comes in thit morning. so that if he cannot ti destroyed upon oct resolution he tmst upon. the other. Now. let us apply the testimony to the secnd resolution. The first one certainly cannot he motiiermiiied as a legal proptosition. Then lot us examine the second o0. that of miy friend from Mississippi. What ]kind of testiiony is reqaired in. order to give the Senate authority to expel a member 7 Why do you expel a cani? You have the physical lower. I adiit. toexpel any iian in th Senate today. A Senator inay gotu pand offer his rcsolution to expel me. without giving aiiy cause. ad if the constitutional mujority of twtthird of the Seaate vote for it. they have the physical power to do it. buti say legally they have no right todo it. yet they iiay do it. aud I cannot help myself. iecause thlre is no appeal from this tribual. This is the tribnal of last resort. and I have no remedy whatever. Hence I may be. or aniy other iiiai niiy be. kicked out of the Senate by more force of numluers. without any reason. I admlit the power of the Semato. but let mis sen upon what that power shlold rest. First. you must have jurisdiction of the subjectmatter. then you must. have jurisdiction of the person. and. besides. you iinist have jurisdiction of the offense. before yel can legally and properly expel a mtember. Now. have yon jurisdiction if the offense. if yo conceive that there was aui olfeuse? Was it coiiiitted by a Senator? Ni. sir. You expel a Senator for a crime eoumitted by a Senator. not for an offense conmitted by a unienwho was merely a citizen. and not a Senator. Hence I deny the jurisdietiiu of the Soate so far as that question is concerned. But. admitting the jurisdiction for the sake of the argument. then apply the testimony. and upon what do you oxpol Do you expel a man without evidence that he is guilty ? Of what ean you say thimat Mr. CALDWIIL is guilty I ]i you say that he is guilty of corruption ? If so. whom lid he corrupt? He must Ituve corrupted some member of the legislature. not an outsider. Did lie do it V The evidence provts no such thig. All it does show is. that a parcel of shysters and scoundrels got around him. and lie. as the report says. not knowing much of political machinery. was robhed by these men. and they made him their victim . and now twice lie is to be made a victim. if he is today condemned by the Senate: first by a set of shysters. and secondly liy the Senate. This report indorses the act of those men. and holds them up in the estimation of this body as great men and noble men. and repudiates him who hins bcit their victim. Now. sir. I want to put another ease to my friend from Indiaia. He argues that paying money to Mr. Carney as an attorney or agent. or whatever yo choose to call him. to electioneer for Mr. CntniDWLn. was ceorrupl. Are not men at homo paid sometimes to elcotioucer? MARCn 13. You pay bands of music. for what? To keep the crowd in a good Iumor. to arouse patriotic emotions. that they may lie prepared to listen to your talk to them. It is done to influence the people. You pay men to make stnipspeeehes. for what ? Why do you pay thea ? That they may influence the voters. and does that bribe the voters ? Attorneys in Washington City arepnid to cene before a committee of Congress and argue a question peiding there. They are paid money for doing that. Does that bribe the committee? According to the argumentt of ly fiieud flue Indian.% in such a ease. the coinittee would be bribed because somte liei argued a ease before thena for which he received afee. and the bribery would be to them because they were iniliusnecd by bis argument. Let me give you an inistanoc of wltat occurred right here in Wasbington at the very last session of Congress. We passed a bill at the preceding session giving about $120.000. I believe. to a man hey tIme inalu omf Bster. of Illiiiin. ci accouIt of nieey that lie had lest in the building of a naval vessel during the war. On the vdry night lim hill passed the Senate Mr. Bestor died. The bill went to the Itouse of Representatives and remained there for sein time. At the last session of Congress it was taken up in that House and passed. Before it was pasded. Mr. Bastors widow. a very old and feeble lady. catte to Senator Trumbull and myself. and to the members of the Itose from Illinois. aud asked our assistance with the conmitee of the House. We. believing it to be ajust bill. did idl we could in tie case. The bill passed the Hons. That old lady had not got outsidb of this town bolero a couple of shysters in this city had a bill against her for $10.000. as I understand. for their influence with Congress in pnsssing that bill. and I do ett suppose that either of them over spoke to a member of Congress tin the subject. I have no idea that thoy did. It was nothing but a blackmailing operatiot. And that is the way things are doe here every day. but. according to the theory of my friend from Indiana. Congress would have bcei bribed in that ease through these two shysters. who tried to rob that old woman of $10.000 on account of her bill having passed. That is the kind of influenee that bribes nembers. and that we are required to repudiate and destroy this moan on account of. Now. Mr. President. I have said cneugh about this question. probably a great deal more than wes uecessary for ire to say. I niy have wearied the Senate in what I have been saying. I have be lievod. however. that I wxas performing tiiy duty. I have done so to the best of my ability. I only say to the Senate in conuehsion. lot us when trying a brotler Senator treat that Senators statements with some consideration at least. Because charges are made against i Seiator. should we thiik that all virtue is centered in us. and all that destroys manliod centered in the accused? Let us jadge one another as we would be judged . let te judge another witli tie game feelings of generosity amd kindness and the saine charity with which we would be judged ourselves. My friond from Idiana said the other (lay hat this was not a case of sympathy. I admit that to ibe true. It is not a ease of sympathy. It is a ease of law and of fact. hot it is a case like any other where a nail is tried fir atn offense. and he stands before his peers charged. and is to be citbe acquitted or found guilty by his peers on the evidence and the law. If this man is guilty. judging himn in a generous way tenillring cur jluinent with such. mercy as the law permits. let hin go forth befire th people branded as a scoundrel and a villain. but if the testimony does not warrant us in that. let us temper our verdict with such charity and such mercy as we would ask our followimen to temper a verdict agaiust us. As God tempers the wind to the shor lanmlb. so let us teisper our judgments toward our fellowmen. Lot ts not be guided iil i rcmurseless way to the destruction of eliuraeter or person. When a Senator is at the bar of justice. being tried for an odfense. let him. at least. be triid upon the same rules and let hin have the saiti principles applied to him that you would apply to a murderer. It you give a murderer the benefit of that which is doubtful. in Gods name give a man. when his all is at stake. the same benefit of a doubt. If you would deal charitably with a man before a jury. when he is being tried for his life. deal the same way with a mai when he is being tried for ull that is near and dear to him. A mans reputation and character. that he has made Iy his energy and faithfulness for. perhaps. forty years of struggle in this world. are as deur to him as his life. It is said that Senators ure made of stern material. that tears never fall from their eyes. that their brows never frown because of the effect of any appeal on their sympathies. that they stand like rocks. like stocks and stonesimmovable. that they cannot be moved through their generous impulses toward- their fellowman. Sir. that is not according to uniman nature. it is not according to the better instiiets of man. I simply ask that no prejadice shall arise against this mao. whom I believe not guilty in law ned fact. that he shall be dealt with net with unkildness. bat with tenderness. with charity and mercy. The report itself says that he was more sinned against than sinning. Mell smile. as though charity and tercy (lid not belong in the breast of a Senator. God forbid that the charity. gomrosity. and mercy that should hemug to human nature should be driven from the bosom of a Senator any more than from the bosom of any one else. There is where it should dwell. that the laws made here. to govern the people. may have a generous vein in them . that they may be soft and mild in their uqpplication. If there is no heart or human feeling or tender chord to be touched in the Seuateehamber our laws will be harsh. and we will bmacoiii tyrants and put our heels upon the necks of the people. Sir. I am reminded of what was said by a German poet when speaking of time and the creation of man: Whon the Ruler of the universe conceived hlio great thought that He would stake man. the three ministers who constantly wait at Rio thrOLTruth. Justice. sut! Merealelrossed Idim thus: Trutm said. 0. God. make not man ble will pollute Thy sanctuary." Jastico said. 0. God. make not main. he will tramplo Thy laws under foot. But Mercy. upon her bemided knees. with tears streaming tront her eyes. said. "0. God. make muan. and. as Thou catest hio from Thy plastic iind on cnrth. I will tatlep hie beneath the hoillow of toy land. and bear him through the trials and vicissitudes of this life. and when the fiel Iay shall come I will return him to Thee as Tho didst give him to me. to bejdged as the child of Mercy." Then. let our judgmnt hero be the samen toward our fellowm n that we weld have our fellowneon pronounce against us. that we may not be jualvted harshly at the final day.

S

Mr. CALDWELL

Unknown

CALDWELL

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

Mr. President. I do neil intend to detain the Sonate long. I rise for the purpose of taling the bearings of this case. in order that we may come back to the qiuestion before ius. The speech of the hmiorablo Senator who has just taken his seat winds up with a sort of Hark ! froiii the tombs a ihlefuil sound. Mine ears ttenid tu ary ." Reimlding me that life is hart. Aind that we all miit die. By and by. It would scen to me. from the Seuators .iigllnioItt. if I stood outside of the committee. that this report ought to he referred back to the uommittee. for the reason that a committee ought always to agree upon the facts ofit case when they present itto the Senate. I thought that the commnittee haid agreed upois the facts of the ease preseuted in this report. I was led to believe eliotthere was no question asto tile fiets. aind if the Senator frotm Indiana. with his facile pen and his arguneints. led my judgment anl the judgment of the honorable Senator from Illinois to coincide with him for a time. even ip to the appearance of that report in the Senate. it may afford some excuse why the arguituio of that Senator may hold my juocment just a little longer. I stood perhaps at lirst alone in tbe committee as one holding the opinion that the resolutimn ought to be e0 of expulsion. Believing that the Senate had jurisdiction either way. I yielded that opinion in order that the committee light harioniz upon the report that was presented to this body. That report canie here without any written protest. The facts were stated by the report. ftlly reviewing the testiiony. and there was no one at the time the report was made ho who dissented from the facts. Tle only dissent made was made as to the conclusions of the report. The honorable Senator from Illinois asks whether the Senate will not believe Mr. CALDWELL upon oath. lie has no right to ask me that question.whien ho stands here as the advocate of Mr. CALDWELL. If Mr. CALDWEL bad submitted his statement upon oathand hadsubmitted himself to Io cressexamined. then the Senator might ask me whether I stood ready to leliovcMt. CALoLvEun OU his oath . but when Mr. CiAr.nwrcLa shrauk front the ordeal. when he refused to submit himself to crossexamination. but studiously held back aud refused to speak until the last witness oh the part of the prosecution had spoken. the Seeater has no right to come here and ask me whether I will believe Mr. CALDWEL OH oath. The Senator asks the question. where is Mr. Bayers? Go. sir. and ask Mr. CALDWELL where Bayers is. The Senate sought to finl his hidinglaceo. Let the Senator ask Mr. CGLD WELL. who had Mr. Bayors in his employ. who was his confidontialfriend. who had been associarted with him in business. aud who. as the testimony goes to indicate. gave him a bribe for his vote. Ask Mr. CALlWELL where Mr. Payers is. and why it was that he did not testify before the committee.

S

Mr. ALCORN

Unknown

ALCORN

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

lask the Senatorfrom Mississippi ifhe intends to intimate that I know where Mr. Bayers is?

S

Mr. CALDWELL

Unknown

CALDWELL

Unknown

M

03131873.txt

No. sir. I said no such thing. The Senator from Mississippi knows what he says. and lie speaks with the responsibility attaching to a Senator upon this floor. I refer the Senator from Illinois to the Senator who holds a seat front Kaesas as to the whereabouts of Mr. Bayers. I do not know that the Senator knows where he is. I have not said that lie know where he was. I have said that the committee knew not where he was. I leave the Senate to its own inferences. It is said that the testimony is mere hearsay. and that in the pages of this volume there can be itoud no proof that there was any oorruption used in the legislature of Kansas. I.assort. in tie language of the report. that the testimony is conclusive to the contrary. I go further aid say that there stand a cload of witnesses going to show that the legislature of Kansas was corrupt to a degree that finds no parallel in any case of which I have ever read or of which I have ever heard. It has given out a cloud of wi tiesses who have blackened each and every page of that testimony with the evidence that corruption prevailed in that legislature. that a satarnalia of corruptiun prodominated. insulting to the people of the State of Kansas and insulting to the Senate when brought before this body. But. sir. I rose. as I said a little while ago. not to review the facts of this case. I may at some subsequent period of this debate take up the facts. and go through with seam of the points. the incontrovertible points in this case. The honorable Senator from Illinois says that the committee is persec[tiig the Senator from Kansas. Far be it from me to stand in the attitude of a prosecutor. much less that of a persecutor. A duty was devolved upon me as a member oT this oraliitiee. That duty I sought to discharge. That duty I did discharge. and I discharged it with all tenderness toward the gentleman whose reputation is ufortutly involved in this investigation. and t will say that if the Senate uon the hearing of this case. upon the reading of this testimony. can acquit him. I. voting in the opposite direction. will. nevertheless. congratulate him. and myself. that men more wise than myself. learned above anything I claim to be. upon fidl investigation. have acquitted hin before thecountry. and I shall be glad of the fact. I yield to my heart upon all questions where there is a reasonable doubt arising frot the evidence. but if the evidence is of such a character as to exclude allreasonable doubt. it excludes the idea that the heart is to be consulted. Then it is a question where the judgment aloneclaims to be heard. When you show meareasonable doubt arising from the evidence. I stand ready to yield that doubt at all times in favor of the gentleman whose reputation is involved in this controversy. The honorable Senator from Illinois intiiiated that the press was joined with this comniittee in this persecution of the Senator from Kansas. Mr. President. there is no malice without a motive. What motive can there be to myself and the honorable Senator from Indiana to exclude the Senator from Kansas from hisseat on this floor ? What motive can there be with the press of the country to exclude the gentleman fron his place here ? Is there a motive that can be traced to any one. or supposed to exist in any one. that would seek to exclude the Senator from his place on this etoor? Why. sir. every notive. every consideration that exists. or that can be imagined. goes to show that each and every man stands anxious to ascertain in such acase the point where duty demands lie shall go no further. but to grant the honorable Senator an honorable acquittal. I listened to this ease patiently. day after day. week after week. trusting that in the end I might be able to find a reason sufficient to justify me in entertaining a doubt with regard to the character of this transaction. I repeat that it was not until every doubt was removed froi my mind that I canie to the conclusion to which I have come. But I said I came to the conclusion in order to harmonize the committee. I did. and now I have a complaint to make. goodnaturedly it is true. for I hold that the position assumed by the Senator front Illinois is a enrly o0e. Ha comes frankly and stabus the fact that he has changed his opinion. and I justify him. even to the last niement of this discussion.Jn any change of opinion that the argument or the further examination of the testimony may go to show to be just and right. But I submit to the Senator that if lie will exaninue this testimony with a little more care still. and lay aside those tender emotions which exist in tho bosom of that Senator to a very large degree. if he will strip this thing of feeling and come to his judgment. I believe. holding in high respect the judgment of that Senator. that be will change again. and that the Senato will witncss that change before the conclusion of this question. for I hold that the evidetce is indisputable. But. as 1 said. I rose to present the issne in this case. This movlug. working up and. down and all over the question. first with regard to the facts and then the jurisdiction. and then in and out again. so disturbs my thinking that I am not well able to decide. onehalf the tiie. what the case is or what the question is. or how the Senate is arguing it. I propose. if the Senate will allow me. to present the issue in a form in which it shall not be misunderstood.

S

Mr. ALCORN

Unknown

ALCORN

Unknown

M

03131873.txt