speech_id
int64 430M
960M
| text
large_stringlengths 2
245k
| chamber
large_stringclasses 4
values | date
unknown | number_within_file
int64 1
7.77k
| speaker
large_stringlengths 6
41
| first_name
large_stringlengths 1
25
| last_name
large_stringlengths 3
36
| state
large_stringlengths 1
28
⌀ | gender
large_stringclasses 4
values | line_start
int64 5
411k
| line_end
int64 6
411k
| file
large_stringlengths 12
12
| char_count
int64 1
245k
| word_count
int64 1
42.6k
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
430,000,701 | defense presents two points of issue with the report of the coniiitteeone of fact and the other of jurisdiction. The latter goes to the establishment of a parliamentary precedent. and. reaching through the future indefinitely. ought to be deterini..ed unencumbered by any incidental questions of the moment. Tip render the discussion less discursive. while at the same time taking up its parts in the order of their succession. I propose that the Senate shall decide in the first place. and separately. on the great question of right raised with snoh boldness in a defense that obtains special weight because of the authority with which it comes. The case of Humphrey Marshall is cited by Mr. CADWELL in support of his views on the question ofjurisdietion. That precedent iay be dismissed briefly by objection to its relevance. The decision reiidered there on the right of the Senate to act on a charge like that. arising out of a private transaction. has no bearig whatever on a question of the right of the Senate to act on a charge like this. arising out of a senatorial election. The action of the Senate in the case of Asher Robbins. unlike that in the case of Humphrey Marshall. embraces incidental points of analogy to the issue ofjurisdiction raised by Mr. CALDWrLL. So also of other precedents that have been cited in the course of this discussion. But while the decision in none of those eases was bno of direct finding on the jurisdiction of the Senate in questions of bribery in *seiiatorial elections. neither was the decision in any one of those cases made otherwise than inthe teeth of a more or less considerable vote of dissent. And in measuring the value of these casesanalogies rather than precedentswe must recollect still farther that they have come down to as from a period at which political opinion was strained in its constitutional renderings by the pressure which bore ultimately toward the destruction of all Federal authority. The cases citid constituting in no sense of the terms direct or conclusive precedents. constitnting in truth. little more than analogies of very questionable authority on even the points they decide. the Senate may. therefore. go forwird cow to the question of jurisdiction in the present case unencumbered by the action or thinking of the past. This declamationof tile defense is no donbt very iigenious. To an ordinary.jury. to perhaps even an ordinary court. it might have been addressed with sene effect. but addressed to this body of skillful lawyers and experienced mcu. I do not think it demands special consideration. The defeise claims that we are powerless to act on such eases as that before as in the firm pointed out by the resolution under discussion. because of onr waiit of athority iu the statutes. The jurisdiction of this body is assuredly not to be measured by that of ordinary courts. Is our power to find guilty ill trials of impeacbment null and void because or the absence of an enactment deimining the class of offenses which constitute subjects of impeachimett Is our pow r to punish members for disorderly behavior inoperative because no law hla been passed to defitie disorderly behavior? Is our power to "expal a member" impoteut because the eouses of Congress have not seen proper to obtain the coisent of another department of the Government to a definition of the circumstances under which either House shall see prouer to exercise that right for the preservation of its own dignity ? In all these instances the Senate is necessarily a law unto itself. The Constitution has conferred on the Senate the power of legislation subject to external concurrences. But besides powers in conniu. it has conferred oi it special powers. powers in whoso exercise it knows no counsels. I10 cooperation. save its own. Tin judicial functions of thu Sonate being final. being exclusive. shall it be said that they have been assigned to us in molckery without the necessary powers? Shall ib be sai titi:bt owers conveyed exclusively aird broadly can be exorcised but nuder the authority and limitation of external consents f In trial of impeachnments. in expulsion ofi members. in judging of ". the elections. returns. and qualifications" of members. this body will surely never agree that it is incapabuleof exercising its special functions bcansu of the absence of those external concurrences that constitute statutory law. Even though a Senate of today were to surrender its prerogative to the passage of laws affecting its exercise of these special powers. any succeeding Senate. with a more correct appreciation of its own dignity. would be perfectly justified in ruling pilas based on these laws intadumissihle. The rights of the States have not on this floor a defender more jeulons of their sanctity than I am. But to pruserve them all the more surely. I must see to it that they be not again hurled into aggression upon the rights of the Federal authority. The refusal of this ehamber to receive a Senator scat hero by a State is certainlyno affront to oven the highest claims of her soveroiguty. Iul their relations with the Union. the States can surely not claim higher rights than those which apply between independent nations. And Von Martens tells us. in conuirroncewith other authories on international law. that "Every sovereign my dictate the conditions on which he will receive eubassadors. and fix the manner of their receptioi. Now. the Federal sovereignty having laid down. with the consent of the parties affected tlerelby. the conditions on which it will receive into itscounsels reprcsentatives of the State sovo reignties. these sovereigities can surely find no ground of offense in a rightful cnforeinent of those conditions. The election of Senators. be it recollected. is totally distinct from what are known as the reserved rights of the States. Created by the Constitution. that puwer began with it. and must be exercised in accordance with its provisions. Now. these go to show very broadly that the creation of Senators by the States is not the exercise of a right absolute. Determining the time. place. and mainer of the election of Senators is. it is true. conceded to the State . but the concession is made subject to a reservation to the United States of a superior righta right to go behind the action of tie State as tn the tim and manner. The erection of Senators beiig subject. in the first place. to the direction of the United States. and. in the next place. to the ratification of the Scuate. it is in a certain degree made by the Constitution a concurrent power. Thu right of the United States to override the State in the essential points of those senatorial electionstheir tiio and ulaUnris not the only poiit from which they are seen to rest on concurrence. The action of the State may be set aside absolutely. and in a fashion that would have boon a gross affront to the sovereignty of the State. if it were not demanded as an essential propriety of things. inder the express right given to the Senate to expel miy of its members. And surely. in presence of this grant of suimnary and arbitrary power. squeamishness is out of place in hesitating to accept from the Constitution the minor power to go behind a fornulary of State action under the assignment" of theSenateas "the judge of thuoloctions. returns. and qualifications of its own members." The judiciary has of course. no right to go behind the text of law. But the legislature in clecting a Senator oceupioe a very different relation to the Senate froii that which it occupies to a judge ii the passage of a law. In the latter ease it exercises an. exclusive right. in the former case the right which it exercises is concurrent. Shall this latter a right of revision. of repudiation. be ineasured in its exercise by analogies from a function confined to mre intcrpretationl To do so wore to confound all distinctions in the nature of things. The governor and legislative officers of at State are not custodians " the rights and dignity of this Senate. "It would." Rawle remarks j ndiionsly. "be inconsist ent with the nature of such a body to deny it the power to protect itself from injury and insult." Aud.. in reference to the extreme right of the Senateto set aside the will ofr the State when even honestly and unquestionably expressed in the election of a Senator. Story says. justly: It appears. then. that this implied power of 1unishing what arc termed contempta iii lonriigeients of the prlvlegos of tio House is in reality the useful instittsion of a sun ary jurisdiction for the punishmont of offenses subetantially committed oa5eat the pCOje. Now. the obtainment of a qtai riget to a scat in this body by money is an act of contempt. To bribe the electors in all election for Senator is an " injutry aod insult." to the Senate. an offense " collnutted egainst the people." And that class of wrong may. therefore. be held to be met in the Constitution by two distinct forms of remedyone that of the sumnmary power of expulsion. the other that of the right tojudge of" elections. returns. and qualifications." For the reason that extreme powers ought to be held I reserve and exercised with reluetanee. a body so sedate as this will not resort to the power of expulsion while it can discharge its duty to itself and the peoplo under a milder form. And for the further reason that the ease before us comes up ti a form which brings it directly ndr the operation of the powers of the Senate as the judge of elentions of its inmnbers. I shall now glanec briefly at the scope of tlhuse powonis. Thorights of the Senate over admission to its mamhuorship are couveyed under three forms of inquiry. The investigation into "tqualilications." and that into "returns. are specific duties . the inquiry into " cicetions" is a general duty. of which the others are two pecitications. Now. while the straining of the old doctrine of State sovereignty bas asserted that the inquiry into " qualifications " is linited by the terms of the Constitution. it has iado the right of inquiry into the " returns" practically null and void. But the gcncral riglft of judging of elections has always been icitained i ferns by the routine which made the admission of Senatois Stilijeet to the consent of the Senate. And with this power remaining. lot me now asi. what is its proper scope? A distinct term in the conveyance. of the authority nuder review. it implies necessarily soiuethiig other than the terms of its context-" qualifications" and "returns. " In judging of "elections" outside questions of the "returns" and of the "qualifications 1 of lse porsou returned. what function can he supposed to belong to us if wo be incompetent to carry that right of judgment into questions of bribery ? Audif bribery lie proved to the satisfietion of the Senate. does not the plea that the Senate baa 110 power to purge itself from that act of counteuipt. to pnuiish that offenso against the peoplo. within the purview of its special powers in thlie case. and without the consent of external eonceurrenees. ailioullt to something like a repeitio of contempt As further argaunent appears t) io to be nunecessary in meeting a. defense so utterly untenablo. I propose. in order to narrow down the discussion. aud to separate a great question of precedent front individual foling. the foltowiig resolition : ltcRsolved That the Senate. acting as the judge of "the elcetions. returnusa qualifictiens of its own incimbees. has tho power aner the Constitition to rcject Sonatorsleut whoso lcthiii shall have beo sroven to the satislaeLion of the IusLate to have been tainted ty bribery. frasid. or intimidations. I ask that this resolution be laid on the table. and at the proper tome I noay coll it up. I present it for the purpose of making the iSsueO here. that we may have it discussed. and wbhen we have diecused and disposed of that issne. then we can go to the question of fiet.
| S | "1873-03-13T00:00:00" | 122 | Mr. CALDWELL | Unknown | CALDWELL | Unknown | M | 2,418 | 2,612 | 03131873.txt | 11,939 | 2,043 |
430,000,702 | Mr. President. I have a few words to say on this question. I think the subject under consideration is one of great importance. because it is to affect the eharapter of a Se nator or the reputation of the Senate. either of which presents a question of deep interest. It appears to ine tLat there have been mauy points sssggested in this discussion which do not affect the real question. and that objections have been r%ised to the proceedings here which have no influence on the qoestiou at issue. I cannot discuss this subject logically. but I beg leave to present. as briefly as I can. a few reasons fur the conclusion to whicl I have arrived in the present position of this question. What are the facts. or wlat is the statement? It appears that Mr. CALDWELL and Mr. Carney were candidates before the legislature of Kausts for a seat n thibs body. that after the election Mr. CALWaL received the certificate of election. and now occupies a seat here. In May last a committee was appointed to investigate his election. and that committee have made their report. and we are called upon to net upon that report. They say that Mr. CALIWELL Was not duly and legally elected. and introduce a resolution to that effect. They say in their report that the arrangement which Mr. CAmW]LwL made withi Mr. Carney to secure his election was corrupt. against public policy. demoralizing in its character. that it contributes to destroy the pirity and freedom of elections. and is not to be tolerated as a moans of procuring a seat iu this body. Upon this statement. sustaiied as the committee believe it is by proof. they report this resolution. If sustained. I think they erred in not reporting a resolution for expulsion. It is claimed that Mr. CALDWELL has violated no statute law. ned that we cannot try him for an offense not defined by stakito. I do not think we should b restrained by the technicalities of penal statutes as demanded by the argument of Mr. CALDWELL.. It% the inii quiry related to the violation of a written law. the question could not be properly before us. but would be before ajjudicial tribunal. We are to judge of the election. returns and qnalifications of Mr. CALDWEL.. 1o statute cal determine wha properties are necessary to qsalify or disqualify a man for a seat in the Senate. That is left to the judgment of this body. If they think that fraud and bribery disqusalify a man. and they 1isd upon testimony that a itsan is guilty of fraud and bribery. then. according to the position which should be first tiken. they should find that he is not fitted or qualified to be a minember of the Seitate. What does qualifieation imply It means something more tla age. something more than a torm of residence. Qualification means fittes. aud a State cannot. as has ben claimied. scud a nia to represent it is this body. and holi hint here. if the Senate should decide that either in mential or moral qualities he is snlit to be a member. If a State shunld send an insane mail to represent it. it would be the dusty of the Senato to say that he was not properly qualified. and refuse to aduit hin. or. if he lad been admitted. to expel him. There might be a question as to the fact whether the nin was insane. or nuot . but if that was proven beyond a doubt. there could be no qiestio in rilatiti to our duty. But it is claimed that we cannot t:ake cognizanee of acts of Mr. CALiWELL which transpired previous to his election to the Senate. Suppose a candidate fotr a seat in this bedyshould enter a convention asseisbled for the pturpose of electing a Sentor. and with a bldgeom saim or disable .oma nsosnlers of tlht convention so that it wouldbe uecessary to remove them. and they were not able to vote on the question. astd suppose in conseqocune of that very ect that man should soCure .111 Olectiose. would he be justly entitled to a seat? It appears to suc not. and yet it would be in aet cocianitted prior to the election. But would he be duly and legally qualified I I think not. and I certainly ea see little diffbreceo in the result between oe use of the bludgeon to disable and the tise of nioney to bribe. It is claimed that this investigation has been instigated by malice. That is vcry possible. but tlt is iot tse questin before us. The shct is thait a committee have been ordered to make this invostigation. and they have made their report. It is said there is no legal proof to sustain the charge against Mr. CALDWELL or to sustains thie report of the comuittee. that the testiioy is hearsay testimony. Then reject it. that is all. It is claimed also that a great deal of this testimony is testilnony which spoaks of what another has one . that bribery has been charged. but Mr. CA[.sWiiLL hlns 11ot boon oniected by testimonay with that ibribery. Very well. reject it aill. If 3ou cannot oinnect Mr. CALewEIL with the brile. yosu have no right to pass a resolution either to expel hiss or to vacate his seat. What is necessary in order to make bribery a disqualificatios ? I know nt the legal bearing of these questions. but it does appear to me that the bribery of a iocenber of the legislature without the consent or the coinnivanee of thelerso elected shusld not make an election void when it has been secured by the requisite number of unbribed votes. and it also appears to use that when the person elected has been guilty of bribery. of bribery only in a single instance. of a single voter. his election should be held as void. even if he had the requisite inusber or votes exclusive of the person bribed. I may be mistaken in regard to this. but these are the views that I entertain. But suppiose that you reject all the testimony which the Senator fron Illinois declares liss no bearing upon this sebiject. the testimnonty of men who coins forward and swear that Mr. CALDWELL did bribe certain members of the legislature. when those members come forward and swear that they were not bribed by him . suppose you reject it all as though it had no bearing upon the qsestion before us. then wlhat? We colme to this single fact that though CA.LDWELL has not bribed Bayers. nor Legate. nor other members of the legislature yet it is aelnowledged by him. admitted by all. that while 6arucy was a caadidato for the Senate. (although. according to the argument of the honorable Senator from Illinois. he swears he was not. and the honorable Selsator gives fell ereslit to the testimony of Carney upon that point. while he rejects his testimnony upon every other.) it is admitted by Mr. CALD WELL himself that he peid $15.0C0 to have Mr. Carney withdraw front the canvass. and to exert his influence over his friends to secure the election of Mr. CALDWELrL. Now. with this state of facts. my mind rushes at once and without hesitation to th conclrsion that the means which he used to procure his election were corrupt and against public policy. and I can come to no other conelusion.
| S | "1873-03-13T00:00:00" | 123 | Mr. BUCKINGIAM | Unknown | BUCKINGIAM | Unknown | M | 2,613 | 2,722 | 03131873.txt | 6,911 | 1,249 |
430,000,703 | claims that this was a private transaction between citizens. neither of whom occupied an official positioc . that it is not declared illegal by statute. and therefore lie is not to be judged guilty of an offense. But this transaction. however private and outside of official position. was to affect the public. it was to affect national legislation and high official appointments. it was to form a componeat part of this Senate. which. in connection with the House of Representatives. marks out a policy which may promote general prosperity or bring general disaster to the peoplo. I submit that such a private and unofticial transaction as this. even if undefined and onprohibited by statute. should make an election void or lead to expul-. sion. and I cannot but find that Mr. CALDWEL has secured his seat in this Senate by means which contribited directly to destroy the freedom of election. so that he has no right to it. Suppose a man should murder a aemiber of a legislative body for the purpose of getting him
| S | "1873-03-13T00:00:00" | 124 | Mr. CALDWELL | Unknown | CALDWELL | Unknown | M | 2,723 | 2,737 | 03131873.txt | 1,016 | 175 |
430,000,704 | I understand that the Senator from Indiana desires to speak upon this question. and is not inl physical condition to do so today. I also desire myself to say a few words upon it. We have now sat to the usual hour of adjournment. If there is executive business to transact. I will move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of execetive business.
| None | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 1 | Mr. SCOTT | Unknown | SCOTT | Unknown | M | 35 | 40 | 03141873.txt | 352 | 64 |
430,000,705 | There is executive business.
| None | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 2 | Mr. RAMSEY | Unknown | RAMSEY | Unknown | M | 41 | 41 | 03141873.txt | 28 | 4 |
430,000,706 | I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive business.
| None | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 3 | Mr. SCOTT | Unknown | SCOTT | Unknown | M | 42 | 43 | 03141873.txt | 74 | 12 |
430,000,707 | I ask leave to offer the following resolution: Resolved. That the Committee. on the eiovisiou of the Laws have leave to sit daring the vatstio. The resolution was considered by unanimous consent and agreed to. icxacea E SESSION. The Senate proceeded to the consideration of executive business. After twentyfive minutes speut ili executive session the doorswere reopened. and the Senate (at four oclock and twentylive imuinotes p. in.) adjourned.
| None | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 4 | Mr. CONKLING | Unknown | CONKLING | Unknown | M | 46 | 54 | 03141873.txt | 445 | 69 |
430,000,708 | I offer the following resolution. and ask for its present consideration : Reelved. That the Committea on Commerce be authorizeand directed to sit during the recess. and to investigate and report upon the subject of subsidies to steaisship lince. and what tins. if any. shoutl be subsilized. also. upon the propliety of paying bounes to shipbuilders and that in the ilisoharge of this duty it may visit Baltimore. Philadelphia. Now Yrk. and Boston. and ihvo eower to take testimony and seud for persoas aisid papers. and emupley a stenogral er . and that the erposes attenlintg this lnve sigation shall bo lii fre. the contingent fnd of the Senate. upon vouchers aplroved by the chairman of the Coinittee oi Commerce.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 5 | Mr. CHANDLER | Unknown | CHANDLER | Unknown | M | 66 | 76 | 03141873.txt | 716 | 120 |
430,000,709 | I am inclined to think that that resolution is one of too much importance to be considered today. If there is to beany examination as to the building of ships in this country. the committee cougt to visit the Pacifie coast. where there is the fluesi body of pine tinther prrobably in the known world today. I ask the Senator from Michigan to consent that the resolution may lie over until tomorrow. so that the general purport of it may be better considered.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 6 | Mr. CASSERLY | Unknown | CASSERLY | Unknown | M | 77 | 83 | 03141873.txt | 458 | 83 |
430,000,710 | I have no objection. if the Senator desires it. to insert " California." A subcommittee might be sent to California to take testimony on this subject. and I should have no objection to such anl aldition to the resolution. I will state to the Senate that the subsidies pressed upon this body and the other House during the last session amounted to over $60.000.000- and it is important. if we are to act on that subject. that we should have the testimony before the body.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 7 | Mr. CHANDLER | Unknown | CHANDLER | Unknown | M | 84 | 91 | 03141873.txt | 470 | 85 |
430,000,711 | Let the resolution be reported again. The chief clerk read the resolution.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 8 | Mr. HOWE | Unknown | HOWE | Unknown | M | 92 | 94 | 03141873.txt | 74 | 12 |
430,000,712 | I think the resolution ought to be printed.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 9 | Mr. DAVIS | Unknown | DAVIS | Unknown | M | 95 | 95 | 03141873.txt | 43 | 8 |
430,000,713 | My motion was that tho resolution lie over until tomorrow and be printed.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 10 | Mr. CASSERLY | Unknown | CASSERLY | Unknown | M | 96 | 97 | 03141873.txt | 73 | 13 |
430,000,714 | Certainly.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 11 | Mr. CHANDLER | Unknown | CHANDLER | Unknown | M | 98 | 98 | 03141873.txt | 10 | 1 |
430,000,715 | A single objection carries it over.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 12 | The VICE-PRESIDENT | Unknown | Unknown | Unknown | Special | 99 | 99 | 03141873.txt | 35 | 6 |
430,000,716 | I give notice that I shall call it up tomorrow morning.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 13 | Mr. CHANDLER | Unknown | CHANDLER | Unknown | M | 100 | 101 | 03141873.txt | 55 | 11 |
430,000,717 | If there be no objection. the resolution will be ordered to be printed. EXSEINATOIc PAlTTEISON. OF NEW HAMPscRE.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 14 | The VICE-PRESIDENT | Unknown | Unknown | Unknown | Special | 102 | 104 | 03141873.txt | 112 | 18 |
430,000,718 | I offer tltefollowiiig resolution. and ask tlat it be laid on the table aud printed: Wheroas at the last session of the Sette a resoltion was reported. fron the select eom.inittle on ovidnce aflecting sertain memimers of the Sents. That Jaues . Patterson be. aUd he is hereby. expelled frotn his setit as a member of the Senati." uit whereas it was envvliftstly iiclossibli to consider this resolution at tlit easesion without serious detriment t6 the public business tn wheroua it is very qnestioabl if it b oiepetcet for rihe Snto toc onsidutir he ease after ir. tattsrsol lies eased to he a nieoibler of tio body: Tierere. Xccloet. IThat the fil ir of the Senate to take the resolutitn into consideration is not to be interproted as evidence of th approval or disapprovtd of the same. llesolvet farther. That hir. taterson have leave to inake a stauuient. which shall Its entered upon the journal of the Secate and tublished ia the cOoieaFssiONT&L 1l Oi1D.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 15 | Mr. ANTHONY | Unknown | ANTHONY | Unknown | M | 105 | 118 | 03141873.txt | 959 | 165 |
430,000,719 | The resolution wilt lie ou the table and be printed. PETITIONS AND tsEiTORAtS.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 16 | The VICE-PRESIDENT | Unknown | Unknown | Unknown | Special | 119 | 121 | 03141873.txt | 78 | 13 |
430,000,720 | Yesterday I asked leave of the Selnate to preseut a petition. which I hold in my hand. anl which I ask leave. once more. to present to the Seiate. It is the petition of John Alsop. who says he is Ite greatgrandson and coheir of Thomas Jenkins. deceased. and. as such. is interested in the French spoaltion claims. so called. I ask leave to present this petition. and to have it referred to the Coinmittee on Foreign Relations. I ought to say in the outset. what deubtless is not already forgotten. that yesterday. upn a call of the yeas and nays. the Senate refused to receive this very petition. It was said then that the Senate had at some former period decided that petitions lookiag to legislation could not be received at a session of the Senate called tr executive purposes. It is well knowa to the Senaro that I lay claim to none of the learning which belongs to the body. I assumed that such a decision had beeu made. because it was so said. It was said on the authority of my friend from Maine. who is not now in his seat. But since that allegation was nade. with tie help of others I have made some effort to lind the docision. I have not succeeded. On the contrary. I have not looked at the journal of a single called executive session whore petitions have not beon received. I hold in toy hand the journal of the called session fl1871. I find. on the 24th of May of that year-
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 17 | Mr. HOWE | Unknown | HOWE | Unknown | M | 122 | 143 | 03141873.txt | 1,388 | 262 |
430,000,721 | preseted the petition of Flaiagan. bradley. Clarks & Co.. and others. whoso Glaits were presetid for adjudication before the ixed coitntis. sion. under the convostion of the 25th April. 1866. &c. And that petition was received and referred to the Cominittee on Foreign Relations. Two years before that. in 1869. " Mr. HAMIN presented the memorial of Adoltph Kioen. praying the difference of pay betweei first sergeantand second lienteiuanu."fnr atrtaiu period of tino. and that petition was received and referred to tie Committee on Military Affairs. In 1867. a petition was presented to the Senate by Mr. Cole. of Califtrnia. which was received oii the 5th of April. 1867. and referred to the Committee o Military Affairs. In 1865. " Mr. Nye presented resolutioms of the legislature of Nevada. in favor of the establishment of railway comnuinication between the navigable waters of the Pacific and the mining disbricts of Nevada - which wore read. laid upon the table. ared ordered to be printed. In 1863. "Mr. Lane. of Kasas. presented a potition from Gilbort Vromanu." The petition was received and referred to the Coert of Claims. On the t8th of March. 1861. at a called exeentive session. who the Snator fiom Maine [Mr. Ila iLIN] was VicePresident of the United States. be "lai before the Senate a letter of the governor of the State of Indiana. conimunicating a copy of a joint resolution passed by the legislature of that State on the huth instant. requesting Congross to call a conventiou of the States to take into consideration the propriety of apiending the Constitution so that its meaning may be itiniitely understood in all sections of the Union." That was read. and it was "ordered that it lie on the table and be printed. On the 15th of March. 1849. "Mr. Atchison presented a memorial" from certain parties. which was referred to the Committee on Indian Aifairs. On the 19th of Marh. 1845. Mr. Dallas. who was then VicePresident. " presented a joint resolution of the legislative council of the Territory of Wisconsin. asking that provision tay be tnade for taking acensus of the inhabitants of that Territory." He also proented memorials from the legislative council of that Territory on several sabjeets. and " the resolutions snid uoemorials were ordered to lie on the table." In 18 9. (as far back as that.) "the VicePresident laid before the Senate a memorial of Messrs. Gales & Soatlon soliciting a subecription in behalf of the United States to a proposed compilation of execrtive and legislative documents connected with the history of Cougross anterior to the year 1515. The memorial was read." If precedents could establish anything. it seems to ine these precedents must have settled the propriety of receiving petitions.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 18 | Mr. AtTUNY | Unknown | ATTUNY | Unknown | M | 144 | 202 | 03141873.txt | 2,748 | 457 |
430,000,722 | It was done by unanimous consent. without objection. By that kind of logic I can show that there are no rules in the Senate at all. because every rule of the Senate has been violated by unanimous consent. Unless the point was made. I insist that a precedent was not established by the Senate. because every rule has been violated. There is no rule on the whole list but what has been waived over and over again by unanimous consent. but that does not establish what the rule is.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 19 | Mr. SHERMAN | Unknown | SHERMAN | Unknown | M | 203 | 210 | 03141873.txt | 478 | 89 |
430,000,723 | I am obliged to the Senator from Ohio for the suggestion. I have to say in reply. first. that there is no rule. no one asserts that there is a role. which forbids the reception of these petitions. and I should have supposed. but for the suggestion of the Senator from Ohio. that when I show. year after year for a long series of years. that petitions have been received. have been offered by one Senator after another. and received by one Senate after another. and without objection in any single instance. it world afford a fair presumption tir coneluding that the practice was not objectionable. and that whenever the objectiu was made it was made without reason. and net with reason. Mr. President. when a body of men like those who usually occupy these seats undertake to be sensiblo. and merely sensible. they are very likely to succeed. but when we undertake to be learned. we are nor. so dead sure of a triumph. Why. sir. one of the first utterances of that parliamentarian who now occupies the chair. who has been as long acquainted with the usages of this body as any one wio now occupies a seat upon the floor. was that "petitions and resolutions tire still in order as morning business in the morning hour." and petitions were presented aud were received. I take it. that is pretty tolerable evidence that the reception of petitions. as such. is not objectionable unless you think of it and resolve to feel unhappy about it. Nay. Mr. President. although the fact does not appear and should not appear from the reading of the journal. yet when yen turn to the CONGRESSIONAL Riltou). which as a transcript of whiat takes place in the Senate is as likely to be accurate as the journal which is kepit by the Secretary of the Senatewhen you turn to the COxaurtESSrONU RECORD you find that this very petition was offered yesterday. was roceived without objection. was referred without objection to a eomrrittec. that other petitions were offered by myself. were received without objection. that then the honorable Senator from New York who sits behind me asked to present a petition. and thereupon the Senator from Ohio intervened with the remark that the reception of petitions had been objected to on a former day. and that be thought it objectionable. Thereupon tie Chair not only ruled out the petition oliered by the Senator trom New York. bt I believe he ruled that the petitions which I had offered were not in order. and that the petitions which had been received aurl had been. without objection referred to a committee should not be received: at all events they were not received. Afterward there was a debate and a vote (if the Senate. and somehow or other the petitions were recalied from the committee and put back inmy hands. All thins I cite as evidence tbat there really is no sort of objection to receiving petitions hero in ai executive session. it was said yesterday that it was a step tending to legislation. Well. Mr. President. considering that we are paid by the yearr. atthough paid a very inadequate sum I admit. which is a sirprising thing when we remember that we pay ourselves. --considering that we are paid by the year. what if we should take a step tending to legislation? Is sot this on the whole rather a favorable opportunity for doing it I Ought you not to be encouraged by the reflection that you cannot take a step which hurts. because yo cannot orature anything until the House of Representatives comes hero and seconds your iniquity?
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 20 | Mr. HOWE | Unknown | HOWE | Unknown | M | 211 | 264 | 03141873.txt | 3,477 | 612 |
430,000,724 | Will my colleague allow me to ask him a qnestion
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 21 | Mr. CARPENTER | Unknown | CARPENTER | Unknown | M | 265 | 266 | 03141873.txt | 48 | 10 |
430,000,725 | Upon that theory. would it not boa great deal better to have the Houses sit separatelyto have the Senate sit. for instance. in May. Junc. and July. and tire House in Anguret. Septembor. and October. thus avoiding all the confusion that arises froii running backward and forward. and let one House do all their business. and then another come here and do thoirst Woild that.fulfill the purpose of the Congress of the United States with.two Houses?
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 22 | Mr. CARPENTER | Unknown | CARPENTER | Unknown | M | 268 | 274 | 03141873.txt | 446 | 76 |
430,000,726 | 0. no . not at all.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 23 | Mr. HOWE | Unknown | HOWE | Unknown | M | 275 | 275 | 03141873.txt | 19 | 6 |
430,000,727 | Still. it would 11 tend to legislation."
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 24 | Mr. CARPENTER | Unknown | CARPENTER | Unknown | M | 276 | 276 | 03141873.txt | 40 | 7 |
430,000,728 | I think it is better to have the House here. I think we can do business better and faster when the two Houses are bere. but if you should happen. when the House is not here. to take a step toward wise legislation. I do not think the country would whine. and if you should take a stop toward bad legislation when the House is not here. I do not think tihe country would whine. because it cannot become legislation until the House cures here. Why. sir. the honorable Senator from Michigan has just offered a resolution here. which was read. and you have ordered it to be printed. Will the Senator from Ohio pretend that that is not a step toward legislation I Will any one pretend that it is not? When went there by a day of an executive session of the Senate that there was not something done which tended to legislation? The Senator from Ohio knows. and you know. Mr. Presideut. and many others now on this floor ronember. that in 181 there wts an execntive session of the Senate called. like this. and which hold rh se seats for weekst I think for something like six weeks. ard there was scarcely a day oi all those weeks on which there was not mere or less work done which tended to legislation. Now. Mr. President. in conclusion I mast say I have an honest hope that the Senate will conclude that the mistake it made was yesterday. and not that all the provious action of all previous Senates has been a mistake. and I m in hopes that this Senate will. upon reflection. conclude to do what all other Senates have consented to doallow petitions to be received at your (tesk and go to tire committees if you have them. and. if not. lie on the table until you have coumrittees proper to receive them. At all events. [ renew the request once mure.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 25 | Mr. HOWE | Unknown | HOWE | Unknown | M | 277 | 305 | 03141873.txt | 1,746 | 328 |
430,000,729 | I do not unlerstand that there is any particular emergency about either of the petitions presented by my hooeable colleague. One asks that legislation may be had which I undrstmd has already bon had. That would answer that. I understood the Senator from Minnesota. the chairman of tire Coin inittee or PostOffices and PlostRoads. yesterday to say that the prayer of one petition had already bon embodied in the legislation of the last session. I believe the other petition relates to the French spoliation claims. If either of them demands the immediate attention of the Senate without the presence of the House. it is ndoubtedly the one referring to the spoliation bill. which has not been pending above about a century in both Houses of Congress. But the real question is. not whether the Senate coul do such a thing. but whether the Senate alone. at an extra session. should enter upon business which belongs to the Congress of the United States. The Senate. of course. could receive petitions. the Senate could perbaps pass bills. but the question is. whether it would be proper to do it Tire ruling that was made yesterday. as I understood it then and" understand it now. is following tie precedents that have been determined by the Senate where the objection was made.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 26 | Mr. CARPENTER | Unknown | CARPENTER | Unknown | M | 306 | 325 | 03141873.txt | 1,274 | 218 |
430,000,730 | I was going to ask iry colleague if he had seen the prcedents himself.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 27 | Mfr. HOWE | Unknown | HOWE | Unknown | M | 326 | 327 | 03141873.txt | 70 | 14 |
430,000,731 | No. I have not. As there are several hundred volenes of journals of the Sonate and House. I have not had time to examine them since yesterday fully. but it was stated in the Senate yesterday that. in one or two cases where the matter had been called directly to the attentiou of the Senate by an objection. petitions had been excluded.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 28 | Mr. CARPENTER | Unknown | CARPENTER | Unknown | M | 328 | 333 | 03141873.txt | 335 | 62 |
430,000,732 | So I understood.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 29 | Mr. HOWE | Unknown | HOWE | Unknown | M | 334 | 334 | 03141873.txt | 16 | 3 |
430,000,733 | f assume that to be the fact. Now. then. the only question is. whether at this session of the Senate alone. not a session of Congress. we had better (because that is what it comes to) enter upon legislation which can only be perfected by Congress. and not by the Senate. There are many things which the Senate is cornpetent to dio at this session. and about which. of course. petitions would be perfectly proper. and of course would be received. but it is conceded that. at the present session. nothing can be aocomplished in regard to these matters. bild the question is whether. when the objeetion is miade to receiving these. the Senate had better receive them. Ifso. I do nut see where the Senate is to stop. The Senate had better receive billsthat tonds to legislation. had netter consider them i had better pass them. I do not know but that there is a constitutional objection to that. I am not certain on that point. Whether a session of tie Serate alone could pass bills which would be regarded as passed by one House of Congress is. to my rlind. open to examination. to say the least of it. But if we could do one we could the other. and if we ought to do one we ought to do the other. which my colleague himself concedes would be inproper. and not a very profitable way of doing business.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 30 | Mr. CARPENTER | Unknown | CARPENTER | Unknown | M | 335 | 354 | 03141873.txt | 1,298 | 241 |
430,000,734 | Mr. President. my friend from Wisconsin [Mr. Howe] socks to establisha precedent. I submit to him whether on the whole. if we are to gio that. it is not better for us to establish the precedent that the Serate shall not undertake to do what it cannot do. The Senate is always disposed to exercise all the power it possesses. and sometimes we go a little beyond the line. Now. when the point is distinctly made. I submit to the Senator whether it is not better for the Senate tn be content with what it has the right to do. rather than to undertake to do what it has not the right to do. The Senat has no power at this session to do arything of a legislative character. All legislative power is conferred upon Congress. and both Houses must be in sessio at the same time or legislation cannot ie done. and the the Constitution provides that neither Honse can adjourn more than a specified number of days without the consent of the other. If this petition is in the nature ef legislative business. in is the business of Congress. not the business of tie Senate alone. Tie Senate for cera purposes is adisinect political body. performing otheir duties besides those of legislation. The Senate shares with the President in the executive power. In certain cases it shares in the judicial power. in certain other cases it shares in the legislative power. but when it shares in the legislative power it must be as a part of the Congress assembled. and the two Houses of Congress must both be in session. It is true. Mr. President. that this is not a very material matter. and I only alluded to it yesterday because I thought that on the whole we Ihad better not present petitions and have them referred at this session. Why refer petitions now ? They cannot be acted upon at this session if they are of a legislative character. and the committees to which they are referred fall with the session. and new cmnmittees may be appointed at the next session of the Senate. No progress. therefore. is made. so that the attempt to hold out tile idea that we are considering petitions is a deception. for we have no right to consider them. Therefore. since the point of order is made. I submit to the Senate whether we ought not now to settle forever the question that this body has no power. when separated from the House of Representatives. when not in Congress assembled. to do anything of a legislative character. The various propositions which have been made here since this session commenced are ell right. We have the power to pass upon the election and qualifications of our members. upon their right to hold seats here. Each House is by the Constitution the judge of that question. and we may act upon it. We are not in Congross assembled. bat we may pass on executive business. We may continue our committees. we may direct our committees during the vacation to perform certain duties. We may dothat under the rules of the Senate. because the Constitution authorizes each House to prescriho rules for its own governmeut. Hence we may. under our rules. continue our committees in action during the vacation. Therefore. the resolution offered by the honorable Senator from Michigan this morning is perfectly within our power. We may continue all our committees during the vacation. because it is a power expressly given to us by our rules. and those rules are authorized by the Coistitution of the United States. But. sir. the same Constitution declares that all legislative power. everything that affects legislation. which isakes laws. shall be done in Congress assembled. These petitions are not addressed to the Senate. they are addressed "to the Senate and Pluse of Representatives in Congress assonibled." Why. therefore. receive petitions not addressed to us? If apetition is addressed to me as acmemberof the Senate. or even in a semiofficial capacity. I cannot present it under the roles and usages of the Senate. It is sometimes done without ohjectioit . but whenever the objection is made and it appears that a communication sent to the table is addressed to me as a member of the Senate. anti not to the body. it is excluded by the wollcstablished cstom of the Senate. These petitions are not adiressed to the Senate. they are addressed to Congress. seding for legislaion. While this is Lt a very important matter. I do thick that when the question is made. when the point of order is raised. the true way is. ifyou please. to file the papers with the Clerk and let them be prcseo ted at the next session . and I find that this very course was adopted at one time ten years ago when Vice- President HAit mN was in the chair. I will read a short extract from the Globe toshow that. this preiisecou re was adopted. Petitions were filednot referred. but filed and kept until the next session. This was in the called session of Mareh. 1861: rErrrIONS.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 31 | Mr. SHERMAN | Unknown | SHERMAN | Unknown | M | 355 | 437 | 03141873.txt | 4,852 | 858 |
430,000,735 | I present a petitie of various citizens of Superior. Wiscoensin. praying for the adopLin of the Gritteeden coinpromise. tr. FsenazN. That can hardly be presented. I apprehel . at this session. We cannot do any legislative busines.acd I think it imlrstpei to prescotpoitioos for matters of legislatlon.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 32 | lMr. POWELL | Unknown | POWELL | Unknown | M | 438 | 442 | 03141873.txt | 301 | 47 |
430,000,736 | Why not?
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 33 | Mr. POWELL | Unknown | POWELL | Unknown | M | 443 | 443 | 03141873.txt | 8 | 2 |
430,000,737 | Cjongress is not in session.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 34 | Mr. FESeNDEN | Unknown | FESENDEN | Unknown | M | 444 | 444 | 03141873.txt | 28 | 5 |
430,000,738 | I am aware of that. I surely wish to present the petition and let it lie on the table.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 35 | Mr- POWELL | Unknown | POWELL | Unknown | M | 445 | 446 | 03141873.txt | 86 | 19 |
430,000,739 | M y question was as to the prepoirt of preseting it at all. It is a precedent. It calls ir legiclation. I moise the qnestion s pon the proprtety of it. It is nothing in reference to the petition itself. but sic ply heciLsoldouht whether there is any propriety iil receiving it.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 36 | Mr. FISENDeN | Unknown | FISENDEN | Unknown | M | 447 | 450 | 03141873.txt | 277 | 52 |
430,000,740 | Icon see c10 icproprioty in that. The petition is addressed to tlce Senate. acd is respectful in its terms. Tice VICnPtSIDeT. Doees the Senator from Maine raise the question I Mr. EVesINDEN. Yes. sir. The VICEPRESuEusT. The impression of the Chair is. that o11 conmnncations have been received at previous session. simply Sfor te oi pose of phaiing theoi oic tCo files of the Senate. ana not for the action of the Senate.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 37 | Mr. POWELL | Unknown | POWELL | Unknown | M | 451 | 457 | 03141873.txt | 421 | 73 |
430,000,741 | Very well. sit: 1 take uo alppeal. The VICn.PlnsicsNT. This communication. therotre. will he placed oni the files of the Senate. That was the course which was then pursued.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 38 | Mr. FESSENDEN | Unknown | FESSENDEN | Unknown | M | 458 | 461 | 03141873.txt | 172 | 29 |
430,000,742 | What is the date of that V
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 39 | Mr. HOWE | Unknown | HOWE | Unknown | M | 462 | 462 | 03141873.txt | 26 | 7 |
430,000,743 | March 13. 1861. And that is all that is said about it. If that course is desired to be pursued now. I should be willing to follow that precedent. but when the point is made. and petitions addressed to Congress in its legislative capacity are presented to us. I think we ought. whenever the oljectiot is taken. to simply refuse to receive them. or. if we receive thei. simply place them en our files for reference at the next session of Congress. It is a great consunmption of time if we spend the morning hour here in receiving petitions. The debate on this very petition has cost us already fifteen or twenty uiinutes today. There is nonuse in it. no object in it. AnySenator may. if we establish tie precedent the Senator front Wisconsin desires. present petitions which will probably lead to debate ant controversy. and this session. which is called for executive business in regard to matters iu which we share the executive authority of the Governmnut. will be converted into a quasi legislative session at the will of any Senator. I hope. therefore. my friend from Wisconsin will not feel offended. will not feel that we arc violating the constitutional right of petition. when we simply say that now we will not receive a document that is addressed to Congress assenmbled.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 40 | Mr. SHERMAN | Unknown | SHERMAN | Unknown | M | 463 | 483 | 03141873.txt | 1,279 | 223 |
430,000,744 | The precedents in this case are clearly upon both sides. It seems to me that the precedent which has been quoted by the Senator from Ohio is the proper one. that we should receive the petitions. not refer them nor act upon them. but place them upon the files of the Senate. A great deal is due to the right of petition.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 41 | Mr. ANTHONY | Unknown | ANTHONY | Unknown | M | 484 | 488 | 03141873.txt | 319 | 62 |
430,000,745 | I have no objection to that. personally.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 42 | Mr. SHERMAN | Unknown | SHERMAN | Unknown | M | 489 | 489 | 03141873.txt | 40 | 7 |
430,000,746 | If the precedents are not uniform. I think woe had better take the most liberal construction of the rule. Yesterday I supposed that the precedents were the other way. although I was surprised to find it so stated. for my recollection corresponded with what has boon read by the Senatorfrom Wisconsin and the Senator from Ohio. but it was stated all arotnd the chamber that the precedents were all against the reception of petitions. and certainly it is desirable that we should stand by our precedents. But since they are on both sides. I think the best plan is thac suggested by the Senator from Ohio. to receive petitions and place them on the files of the Senate.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 43 | Mr. ANTHONY | Unknown | ANTHONY | Unknown | M | 490 | 499 | 03141873.txt | 666 | 118 |
430,000,747 | I agree with my colleague Chat the petitions I have urged upon the attention of the Senate are not of any vital iniportauce. If they are not received at all. I do not knov of any great interest in the country that is likely to languish. The point I was trying to show was. that you could receive them without striking a deadly blow at any great ictterest of this country. The Senator fronm Rhode Island has just remarked that the precedents seem to be on both sides. No. Mr. Presidenti. I do not so understand it. So far as we have any precedents. they are on one sideon the side of receiving petitins. The Senator front Ohio mentions a case where a petition was received and was itt referred. I have cited a great many cases where they were received and referred.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 44 | Mr. HOWE | Unknown | HOWE | Unknown | M | 500 | 511 | 03141873.txt | 764 | 143 |
430,000,748 | Alt our rules are violated by cocicmon consent. bilt those cases are not precedents. A precedent is set only where objection is made. ad a ruling is had as to thuright of the case. Every rule is violated by unaninuous consent. as a matter of daily occurretnce.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 45 | Mr. SHERMAN | Unknown | SHERMAN | Unknown | M | 512 | 516 | 03141873.txt | 260 | 47 |
430,000,749 | Eut where from the foundations of the Ouvernmnent until yesterday you do a thing right along without an objection. it rathor agties to my titiu that you have iot any role against it. That is the dcdnetion I was trying to draw. acd to enfirce on the attentiol of tle Sectatethcat there was to rule against it. or that all Seeators and all Senates would not have acted in violation of it. as they have. if you have such a rule. Now. I have not any sort of objection to the laying 9f rhese petitions on the table. I care but very little what disposition the Senate itakes of these particular pieces of paper. The Senator from Ohio howver. makes an argament. upon econotmical considerations. that if we once establish the rule of receiving petitions. it may lead to the expenditure of a groat deal of time. In reply. I show him that from the foundation of the Government yon have received petitios. and in all that time you have not wasted so mch time in the receipt of petitions as lias beeneipendod yesterday and today to exclude them. and to exclcde these partictnlar petitions from the Senate. So I think. on the score of economy. you hail better go along as your fathers have gone. rather ttan undertake to blaze out new paths iu the wilderness of legislation.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 46 | Mr. HOWE | Unknown | HOWE | Unknown | M | 517 | 535 | 03141873.txt | 1,261 | 229 |
430,000,750 | Does the Senator from Wisconsin offer this petition ?
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 47 | The VICE-PRESIDENT | Unknown | Unknown | Unknown | Special | 536 | 537 | 03141873.txt | 53 | 9 |
430,000,751 | Yes. sir. I offer the petition. I send it to the Chair.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 48 | Mr. HOWE | Unknown | HOWE | Unknown | M | 538 | 538 | 03141873.txt | 55 | 12 |
430,000,752 | I move that it be received and placed on the files of the Senate without a reference.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 49 | Mr. SHERMAN | Unknown | SHERMAN | Unknown | M | 539 | 540 | 03141873.txt | 85 | 17 |
430,000,753 | The Senator from Ohio moves that the petition le received and placed on the files of the Senate.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 50 | The VICE-PRESIDENT | Unknown | Unknown | Unknown | Special | 541 | 542 | 03141873.txt | 96 | 18 |
430,000,754 | In a motion necessary to that end ?
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 51 | Mr. FENITON | Unknown | FENITON | Unknown | M | 543 | 543 | 03141873.txt | 35 | 8 |
430,000,755 | The Chair is informed that yesterday the Senate decidcd nt to receive petitions at this session. Of course the Chair must be governed by the decisiin of the Senate o a direct vote. whatever may have been the action of the Senate in years past. Mr. SI-[ERMAN. I ate willing to withdraw the objection. or let it atand. whichever is the best course. My honorable frienid from New Ylrk seened to olject to ciy motion.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 52 | Tie VICE-PRESIDENT | Unknown | Unknown | Unknown | Special | 544 | 550 | 03141873.txt | 413 | 75 |
430,000,756 | No.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 53 | Mr. FENTON | Unknown | FENTON | Unknown | M | 551 | 551 | 03141873.txt | 3 | 1 |
430,000,757 | I am willing to receive the ]paper. and file it and take care of it sntil the next session.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 54 | Mr. SI-lERMAN | Unknown | SI-LERMAN | Unknown | M | 552 | 553 | 03141873.txt | 91 | 19 |
430,000,758 | For the mere purpose of ascertaining for my own inibrmation whether the prosentatioi ofsuch peti tions be proper or improper. I object to receiving the petition. and ask a ruling of the Chair.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 55 | Mr. CARPENTIER | Unknown | CARPENTIER | Unknown | M | 554 | 557 | 03141873.txt | 192 | 33 |
430,000,759 | The Senator from Wisconsin objects to the reeclitien of the petition.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 56 | The VICE-PRESIDENT | Unknown | Unknown | Unknown | Special | 558 | 559 | 03141873.txt | 69 | 11 |
430,000,760 | What is the decision of the Chair. Mr. President?
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 57 | Mr. FENTON | Unknown | FENTON | Unknown | M | 560 | 560 | 03141873.txt | 49 | 9 |
430,000,761 | According to the action of the Senate yesterday. te petition eannot be received. The Chair must be governed by the direct vote of the Senate in that matter.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 58 | The VICE-PRESIDENT | Unknown | Unknown | Unknown | Special | 561 | 563 | 03141873.txt | 156 | 28 |
430,000,762 | Well. Mr. President. I suppose. then. the Chair will sustain the objection and rule th petition not in order. Will not the Chair consent to submit the question to the Senate once more. in view of the fact that the Senator from Ohio. who was yesterday opposed to the receptiou of petitions is today in favor of it ?
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 59 | Mr. ILOWE | Unknown | ILOWE | Unknown | M | 564 | 568 | 03141873.txt | 314 | 59 |
430,000,763 | Not at all. f am opposed to the reception of petitions. but at the same time I am willing to get rid of them in tie qniockost possible wn.y. What is the use of receiving them I I shld vote j tost as I did yesterday if the question comes up.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 60 | Mr. SHERMAN | Unknown | SHERMAN | Unknown | M | 569 | 572 | 03141873.txt | 240 | 51 |
430,000,764 | I see I was misled by ltie Senator. I supposed. when he moved to receive it. that he was in favor of receiving it. I beg his pardon for the mistake into which I fell. I am every liomet texposing my ignorance of parliamentary ways. I ask the Chair now. however. to be good enough. as there may be some other Senator who is in favor o receiving petitions who was opposed to it yesterday. to submit the question to the Senate. I do not like to take an appeal.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 61 | Mr. HOWE | Unknown | HOWE | Unknown | M | 573 | 592 | 03141873.txt | 456 | 90 |
430,000,765 | Certainly. the Chair has no objection to submitting the question to the Senate. and the Chair submits it. The question is. shah the petition presented by the Senator from Wisconsin) be received by the Senate?
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 62 | The VICE-PRESIDENT | Unknown | Unknown | Unknown | Special | 593 | 596 | 03141873.txt | 208 | 35 |
430,000,766 | Lot us have the yeas and nays once more.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 63 | Mr. HOWE | Unknown | HOWE | Unknown | M | 597 | 597 | 03141873.txt | 40 | 9 |
430,000,767 | Mr. President. without indulging in any preliminary remarks. such as might be suggested by the gravity and importance of this occasion. I will at once approach the question which is preeented by the report of the Committee on Privileges cud Elections and we find tant questio not only suggested. but actLally presented. by the report. with its accompanying resolution. Let mo call attention to it by quoting from the relsort : It lirs been a subjet of discussion in tile comnmittee whether the offeauses of whirls c oy believe r. CALI)nwIAm to have beets guilty should be louishC.1 by ox. ishiou or go to [lie validity of ils election. ansi a urcorsty are of the opinion that ttley go o [lee validity ol his elotiou.anl hal the eifect to nalo it. void Where. Core tile conlittes roeeolunuid o th Soeate the adoption of the following resolatiles. It will he observed that the finding of the cominittee is based. not upon what they have found the membersof the Kansas Iegislature to htvt been guilty of but poin what they lind Mr. CaDELL to leave been geilty of. Lest that point escape attention. let me agai call attentiou to their own language: It has been a souiot of discussion in the commeittoe whether tie offensos of ohicli 018y belieese Mr. Ca.wot IcL to hce bee gailly should be tnis hedl by oxpaulsion or go to tile validity of his eleetien. In this connection. and before I proceed further. let me call attentio to the finding of the committee upon the questions of fact as to te legislature itself. for it will. perhaps. be neceseary to consider this queestion in both its aspects. namely. as to the effect which the action of the legislators may have upon Mr. CALTDWELLi5 election. and as to the effect which his own acts naybave upon his right to hold his seat here. There is oto specilic trassaction. to which tie comtinittee refer. with GoveornorCoriey and I quote their language to give the coeciesioe at which they arrived as to it: It wns all attempt to bay the .votes of mmbors of thie logishtsro. snt by brilsing the.. directly. but through the maniiulations of anothsr. Tie parclhtoemoncy was lob to go to thosm. bust to Ar. Cusraucy. who was to sell and teeimr ien with. 0.it their knwledge. That Mr. C.ALnInLL did procars the votes of mo ers of the legislature. friends of Mr. Carney. ignarant of the fact that Mr. Carney waa sooking merchandise of bi political character and influlenc. and of their ft icedchip for bin. for which hewas to receire a largo saw of anoney. the evidence leaves no reasonable doubt. The finding of the committee is that. so far as the friends of Mr. Carney are coneerned. who voted for Mr. CALDWELL. they voted without knowledge of the transaction between him and Air. Carney. and without being influenced by the esoney which Mr. Carney received. Passing from that transaction to the whole testimony. they make this slUn llary : But. tiking the testimony altogether. lie oemmittes cansot doubt that motley usas laid to sHuso.niecnlrs Of tholegislatur lir their vots. and l nioy lioeuisdol to others which was not paid. astl offered to others who did not accept it. It will thus be observed that. so far as Caxieys friends are coscorned. the committee fiud that they wrc not corrupted. 1t will further be observed that they to uotfind that Mr. CALDWELa was not elected by an aubribed majority. or. to state it otherwise. they to not find that the majority by whcsc votes he was elected were all bribed. and. with these findings. because of the offense of which they filtd Mr. CAruWELTL guilty. of htaving used money for the purose of procuring his election. they declare the act of the legislature of Kansas veid. Mr. President. this presents tle really important question which we are to consider. It is argued that this is the law. and that we derive it from the source from whaich we derive the greater portio of our law. Great Britain. I cannot bring niy mind to the conclusion that the finding of the committee is eause for setting aside this election. and I siall proceed briefly to give the grounds upon which I dissent from that conclusion. It is argued. and I believe correctly. that if this were the case of an election of a member of the House of Commons. the finding that one elector was bribed by the member claiming his seat would avoid the electioss. It would go further. it would not only avoid the election as a punishment of the electors. according to the theory of the Euglish law. but under their statute it would disqualify the man elected from being reelected. Now. sir. is that English law applicable to our American institutions ? Is the reason which applies to a popular election in England and which punishes both the censtituency und the member elected. because one member of that constituency was bribed. applicable to the case of an election by a StateI Can you punish a State as you can ia England punish a constituency. because one member of the whole population of that State. intrusted for the time with a public trust. bus violated it? Itpresents the mtost important question. Ithiink. that the Senate has ever been called upon to decide. and according as we decide it. ote way or the other. we shil preserve the checks and balances of the Constitution. or may introduce a precedent which may bring with it strife. anarchy. and blood. That I may not misquote or misconstrue the position this question has assumed. lot me turn to the argument of the chairman of the committee. made with all the force which his character and the strength of his conviction could give his presentation of the case. After quoting the resolution the committee had reported. he says: Tise ground upon which bitbery sad intimidation Invalidate an election is that they impair "the freedom of olectiots." Rogers. in his Treatise on the Law anl Pretice of Elections. speaking of tie action of the feec of Commons. says: " ribsry essentially affecting the freedom of election. they took cognizamco of ail pousisluld both the electors and the elected offending." lirstlery by a candidate. though in one nestance only. and though aj ority of ubrilsB votes remain it his i -ols. will avoid te particular electia ad disquuilif hi fur beitg reelected to fill such vacancy. Now. Mr. President. the question presents itself. is that doctrine applicable in a governient made up of indopendet States ? To avoid all controversy or criticisn. I drop the term "sovereign States." bat is it applicable to a government whose legislative assemblies are representatives on the one side of the people in their respective districts. and. on tie other. of these independent communsveaibths? Our Government is so dissimilar from that of Esuglanl. although England is the source front wih we derive iany of our institutions. that natuy of the comparisons between them fail. With a limited monarchy. a House of Lords hereditary. amid a House of Commons elected by a small portion of the English people. the analogy fails iii niany respects whoe yon coiie to look sit a President. who reltresents the whole people. the nation. at a Senate. which represents States. and at a House. which represents all tle people in their respective districts . and it is because this analogy fails that I argue this paliamentary law of England is not applicable to an election. especially by a State . als. I think. if I have the strength. or if I rcall the thought. I can show the rulo has never been held to be applicable oven to our popular elections. for it has never yet been held in the other House that a single case of bribery by a member took away the right of the whole constituency to their representative. Let me relir to One oft the mest reliable of the authorities upon parliamentary law to show that the very question I make here has been started in his nind. and has beo presented in his treatise. I read front Cushings Law and Practice of Legislative Assemblies. page 70 : Itn Ensglnd. before the esuofiueset of any of tll statutes o the sibjeot. bribery ws not sly sigh misdmeanor at cot men law. punishable by idiotnot or inforisation: bt. wnlo practicel at elortions of iemhers of Parlisment. was also a brnath of pirliamentary privilege. unit punishable accordingly. and it is an offCase of so heisous a chaoter and so utterly sitbversive of the freedoem of oeletion. tlat. when proed to have been prtleiced. tlsioughi e i ls issince toly. asl though as majority of usbribed voters resnain. the election will be aheldiately void. That is the doctrine contended for in this report and by the chairman of ther ommittee. The author proceeds: This severity is justified on the grond that. in a country whore bribery is so cosissi oss srorns fill) subject of isvestigaties in a large proportion of ectin eases. it is aheoltely eseinial to te rrswitn of [hle freedons ofolection. Whetl er the 81s1 elolioet wotild be held to follow in this couatry itay asbit of some question. or. loriaps. depend opon the degree of guilt tta the d in ill0soveral States tothe offense of bribery. This ofiense. tlough taloo less common hero than it Engleel. is tievorteloess cnoidered as so subvrrsive of the *ir(loLl Of election. and se isglnceful to this patties eoiucernsed. that it is made an express ground of disqtalit edtion in the constitutions of several of the States. It will be observed that. after quoliug the parliamentarylaw of England. the question is storted whether it is applicablc to popular elections in our States. The author is not considering the question of ate election by a representative body. but the elections in the States. and he concludes thus: The right of a legislative asomly. in those States where a conviction is necessary to disqualify. to sot aesido n election for bribery. where the majority is not thereby afeted. befoe a conviction iu law has taken macu. seems to be learThat is. under the constitutional and statutory provisions of the Stateflr. in tsl frst place. the trial of a controverted election is a jndicial proceeding. second. anaulling an election foer bribery. in the case aospposd. ie aislogon to enjulsion. nhilch is the peculiar and apprdpriato punishmont for bribery by the cosmn law of Parliament. There is the reason of the whole English law: "is anesthgous tio expslsion. which is the peculiar and appropriate punishment for bribery by the eommon law of Parliament." Thus you get at the intendment. the purpose of the English law of Parliament It is pnnishmentpunishmcnt of the constituency. punishment of tLo member who bas been guilty of bribery. Now. I submit that when you go to the foundation of that parliamentary law of England. ali seek to apply it to an independent commonwealth. the reason of your law fails. The people of the States are themselves the guardians of the purity of their own legislative assemblies. and if it were necessary to pursue the argument fbr the purpose of showing where this doctrine would lead. I might suppose a case: It is admitted that the moment you approach the legislative assemblies of the States you eannot inqaire into the title by which one of the menbters holds his seat. that is a question committed by the State constitutions exclusively to them. Yn could have this ease. and it. aight be made as apparent as noonday that one meteber of that legislatro had been bribed in casting his vote for a Senator. and that five who sat beside him hold their seats by bribing the electors who sent them there. and we. sitting -s the high court to purify all the people. would be compelled under this English law to turn oat the man because one elector had been bribed. but we could not turn him out. although it were as clear as noonday that live others beside him had corrupted the fountain of power and hold their seals by bribery. Mr. President. the people are the fountain of power. and the lossoU we nunst teach in this case is thisatd it is high time it was being taught here and elsewherethat the people themselves are respousiblotbr bribery and corruption in legislative assemblies. We are not to sit here as a high court of appeal. blackening forever the characters of mnmhers of the State legislatures without a hearing. saying that they were bribed. We must say to the people. " If you will not exercise that power which is inlerent in you. and exercise it at every stage whore it may be exercised. from tie primary moeting up to the highest election. you are the safferers. and you have the remedy for the evil in your hands." I may speak further of this. for I timd that I am already digressing somewhat from the line of arguntit which I proposed to fellow. Does this rule apply to an election by a State. by a political entity. upon which there canuot be inflicted the punishment that was inflicted upon constituency and member by the English parliamentary law ? I consider now the peculiar constitution of this bodythe rules which govern it iu its relations to the States. I need not recall the history of the constitution of this body . Iueed not recall to the minds of Senators the fact that the rights of the States as States were sought to be protected in this body against the encroachments of the Federal Government. but I do call attention for a few meinents. although the detail may be. perhaps. uniiteresting. to the constitutioal provisions. all of which point to the sactity of the representation of States. Article one. section three. of the Constitution. reads as follows: The Senate of th United St ts shall be composed of two Senators from each State. chosen by the legislature thereof. for six years. and teh Senator shall have one vots. I refrain from any comment upon these separate provisions until I group all which I think bear upon this subject. Ia the same section. after providing for the manner in which the seats of Senators were to be drawn in the first organization of the Government. this provision occurs: And if vacancies happen by resignation. or otherwiss. during the recess of the legislature of aly State. the execetive thereof nay make tounpoaury appointments until the next moting of the legislaturo. which shall then till such vacancios. Then follow the qualifications of the members of the Senate : No person shallbo a Senator who shall not have attained to the ago of thirty years. and been nine years acitizon of the United States. and who shall ast. when elctod. be an inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen. Then follows the provision authorizing the States to fix "the times. places. and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives." but providing that "Congress may at auy time. by law. make or alter suech regulatios. except as to the places of choosing Senators." Then conies the provisionEach ous shall Ite the judge of the election. returns. anl qualifications of its own members. and a mnajo ty of each shall constituts a qoram to do business. Again we have the provision : Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings. punish its inembers for disorderly bhehylor. and. with the concurrence of twothirdo. xpti a member. Thus we have ill these previsions with reference to the choice of Senators. to their appointment by the governor. to their qualificatious. to the time. places. aid nianner of choosing them. to the power of the belly to judge of their election. returns. and qualifications. to the power of expulsion. requiring twothirds. ant. last of all. comes that provision which shows how carefully guarded the rights of the States wore in this itstrunmnt. because the only exception made from all.ts classes of subjects within the jurisdiction of the General Government as to the power of aeendnct is. that no amendment shall be adopted which shall deprive a State of its Seators without nuanious consent. It is the only one subject excepted expressly from the power of amendumnt. showing that the right of a State to Save its Senators here. elected by its legislature. cannot be takei from it unless it be by the conseut not only of t at State but of all the States. Now. sir. with these provisions before us. let us ask ourselves. calt you apply to the State legislature the rules which the House of G Cormmons applies to its constituency and its members. and declare that if o inueber. represtl.ting .erhais twenty thousand people of the whole Lour and a half millious in the State of Now York. shall betray his trust. the act of that unworthy member shall deprive more than four millions of their right to representation in this body? Which is the safer rule. Mr. Presilent. to haud that unworthy onher over to be dealt with by his constituency. or to say that we will arrogate to ourselves a greater degree of purity than the legislative bodies whicla sent us herethan the fotutains fron iwhich we coniand that we will undertake to deteriniie the purity of oar own source of political existence? That this eotld nsever have bee intended to apply to elections of members of th Senate. I thiak derivessoto reoabreoenitt froam what I consider a cignificatt flat. Thre have boon contested seats in the Senate almtost flots the foundation of the Government. there have been contested seats in the other House. and the acts of Congress which yo lied upon your statutebooks providing ]tow the testiinony is to be gotten in cases of contested elections. the acts of 1851 and 1869. apply alone to members of the Htuse of Ropresentatives. It is true that you may inquire into the qnalifications of tte electors. you may iejuiro whether a man has pait his taxes. whether he has resided the constitationad period in his district or any of the other qualilicatioosa at tare required by State law. but the moimont you approach a legislative hody. its I have already observed. that analogy fails. and if there be all the virtue in the world on one side of the legislature. anti l horsothieves ol the other. if it were possible. you caiot inquire into the character of a single man among them. Wieu you reach the legislature. you cannot inquire into the title of one of theni to his seat or his right to vote its that legislature. that is settied by the legislature itself. So that all analgies fail the moment you come to apply the rules which are applied ia contested elections in the popular branch. the House. to an election by a legislature. If this door is to be omened. how far are we to go I if it be true that we sity go to the legislature of Kansas. and inquire whether Bayors or any other mtember of it wis corrupted for the purpose of electing Mr. CasIWiIne. and. upoi our judgmuent of whether that is the fact or not. cet aside that election. what more is it than esiablisitg the rule that we may set aside such tn eletioa for any reason that we doem to be corrupt or itn proper? Take eke haglisl bribery laws. and they unseat uembers there for treating.a nd I an sure that. high as the Senate of the United States eust be considered to be in point of moral elevation. if it is to purify all the legislatures of the States. there are even anen here who would not be willing to be unseated if it wore showu that they had indulged their constituents in a glass or even a keg of lagor. We may scot carry our rule so far as the English Parliatient. We may not bring here all the rules which they have considered necessary in a country whore. according to the author froe whom I read. fraud has been so prevalent that every parliamntary election is contested. We cannot do that. If we can. I pray you. where are we to stop? If I may do it without offense. suppose I make use of a ease as an illustration that we have had on this loor within the last three woees. The allegation is that if yen find one man in a legislature who has been inflnenced by mercenary motivesI will put it even in that formyou asest declare the election void. Well. sir. suppose there were an electiou for Senator to come off ia the State of Indiana. or in the State of Illinois. or in the State of Ohio. next January. We discussed here for several days a bill involving a million and a half of dollars to these three States. that is allsiiply "the -filthy Msore" of a nillioct anl a half of dollars. The representatives of those States. upon grounds of justice. as they contended. asked the passage of tle law to give it to them. The majority of the Senate upon proper totives refused it. said it was wrong. against public policy. I nr nset sure but that some of them went so thr as to say it wts dishonest. Qustions less than that have otvidsed States. and elections have turned upon them. and if this question were to go down and enter into the mtext canvass in the State of llinois. or the State of Indiana. and the whole people of Illinois or Indiana were to say. "We will have the money . it is due to us. and we will instruct our Senators upon this money question." I submit if we are to be the judges of the motives of men. we. a bare majority. as under this resolatiou. may say that the legislature of Ininsa was corrupted by its share of the millioa and a lalf. atnd the Senator shall uver teo Ils seat. How far are you to go ? What is corrupt. itotive? How many isen in it legislaturn are to coinbiute together for th purpose of carrying this. that. or the other local interest. to elect their Sontor and sond him here to represent it? Why. sir. it openis the widest and the most dangerous field that has over yet bon opened in the oxperiments of American politics. Lot me call attention very briefly to a easnawhich has been referred to in tis argermenttlo ice ci Fletcher vs. Peek. It is avery familiar case to the profession. I io not propose to road it at length. bet let me state briolywbat it was. Tvo trivate suitors wore in coart. anLd their case drew in qustio the validity of an act of the legislature of Georgia. They did not ask the court to investigate whether it had beon procured by eorrupt motivesi that was hardly necessary. for a subsequeit legislature of Georgia itself. looking into the transaction with reference to tho sale of tho Cherokee lands in that State. were so well satisfied that the W11tle legislatur was corrupted by the interest the members hold in the subject upOnL which they legislated. that they so declared upon the records1 ani expi ged the act from the statulebook. Here was a clear case. The power which had created the law had declared that it was procured by corruption. and yet. in that case. involving private rights. the Supreme Court of the United States said they musttake that aCt of the legislature as th1e law. that it was not seemly or decent in the judiciary to inquir wh ether the legislative department of any portion of the country was corrupted. Tie court refused tolook into it. and sustained the title based upon that act. which was almost consigned to be burnod by the common hangman under the indignation which its corruption excited in Georgia. The court in delivering that opinion. do intimate that the State might. perhaps. where it had been defriauded. ask that such an act be set aside. They do not say that they would entertain the jurisdiction then . but that dictio is thrown out in the decision of the case. Following even that intitration. look at what the legislature Of Kansas have sent us hero. They investigated this subject . they had the question before them of whether Mr. Pomeroy and Mr. CAvninWErL had been elected by bribery. What do they do? Do they ask us to unseat them because they find that they were so elected ? No. sir. they simply send us the testimony for our information. that is all. So. oven if we were to take lold oftho suggestion in this ease and say that the legislature of Kansas has invited us to look intothe subject. we are still left to thequestion. what is the legitimate consequence following thefactswbich are laid before us? Do theyinvalidatethis election. oido they simply make the member whom they have sent amoable to ourj arisdiction byexpulsion? No. sir. theycannotiinvalidatetiiselection. If they can. if you can go into the motives ef the individual members of a legislative body. let me ask you. Mr. President. to look at the results which are to follow. I have already spoken in some slight degree of them. but supposo another case. Suppose that Mr. CALDWELL. while he holds his seat. were to die . suppose we were to expel him tomorrow. and the vacancy occasioned either by his death or his expulsion were to be filed by the governor of Kansas. nuder the Constitution. all that is necessary. if you invoke this power. is to bring some man here to say that the governor ANas inlaunoed by corrupt motives in making the appointment. Here you have the power of the State concentrated in the hands of one luan. and he is the only organ through which the State can act. Unless the vacancy is filled by him and through him. the State must remain unrepreseuted. If you set up this as the court of appeal to pass upon the motives of the persons by whose acts our seats are to be filled in this chamber. the Senate of the United States may efftctually deny any State the right to rprosentation whose Senator presents each appointment. The Constitution never intended any such thing. Lot me go further. If you may look into the motives of the emabers of legislative assen.blies. we have constitutional amendments which axe ratified by the votes of the legislatures of threefourths of the States. and their votes are just as necessary in that case as the votes of a legislature are to elect a Senator. and if you may investigate the legislature of Georgia or Arkansas. or New York or Delaware. and say that A. B. and 0 wore influenced by corrupt or mercenary motives. that somebody bribed them to vote for the constitutional amendmouts what are those amendments worth ? You may ask me what tribunal is to try that. I say. Mr. President. that. if the rule under discussion is adopted. tribunals will be found to try all these questions. It is alleged that the constitutional provision making us thejudges of elections will authorize us to go into this election. -Well. sir. the eonstitutional provision which gives to the judges jurisdiction of all questions arising under the Constitution and las of the United States will soon take there a question involving the validity of the fourteenth anendment to the Constitution. and if you declare that the Senate may inquire into the parity of motive of legislative bodies in the States. it will not be long until the judiciary will say that they. traditionally the purest department in all governments. will inquire into the motives of th legislature. And yet further. SupIose there be a failure to elect a President by the people of the United States. and the election goes into the House of Representatives. where the vote is given by States. each State casting one voto. carry this doctrine. imported from British parliamentary law. into American lawr. and prove that one member of the delegation of New York was bribed. and in the absence f a provision for contesting the election of President of the United States. you have anarchy before you at once. We represent the States. our action is but the aggregate action of all the States. and if this decbrine be true that the action of a State may be invalidated by the corrupt motive of one representative. why not set aside a treaty which has vitality given to it by the ation of all the States. by simply showing that the Senator of oie State was actuated by corrupt or impropor motives? I sto no answer to this and if the one doctrine bo trao. the other is true as its logical consequence. But it is not true. for. once established. it would disturb the balances and checks provided by our f thers for the haruimeuas working of this complex system of government.. It is all resolved by the fundameuntal principle that all power is inherent in the people. To them yea mst look fior the correction of these evils. And. sir. if the business men of this country. the firmiig community. the merchants and manufacturers. the industrious working classes of all occupations. who make up the majority of hooest men in all communities. cannit have thei r attention drawn to the importance of their beceumig politicianspoliticians in the roper sense of the term . if by their inetlicienoy and neglect. these things go on we have no other fate before us than to realize that republican government is a failure. and that the fancy of the poet will find its realization here : First freedom. and then glory. when that fails. Wealth. vice. corruption. barbarism at last. I have argued that we cannot go into this question. but if we can. then what must we find? I say not that one man was corrupted. not that the member himself was guilty of bribery. for the purpose of setting -aside his election . but you must find that the majority by Which he was elected was corrupted. otherwise you open a door fur corruption all over this land at which bad men will rejoice. Why. sir. if one vote ii Kansas proven to be corrupt can set aside an eletion. Heaven knows that in the state of things which has been revealed there in the last year or two. there will a paean of joy go up throughout the State every time you declare an election invalid. for it will bring a new victim for the harpies to prey upon. and they would come up hero by the score after every election. for the purpose of proving ome man to have boon corrupted. in order to have another chance for the spoils of an election. No. sir. we must hold thin responsible. and teach them that the renedy is in their hands. and that. if they will not exercise it. they cannot conle to us as a court of appeal for the purpose of purifying them. Now. sir. I call attention (and it is all I propose to do oi that subject) to what I have already read from the report. to show that. it a majority must he shown to lie corrupt. then the report itself fails to find that result. It does find that Carneys friends were not corrupted. and it fails to iad that there was a majority in the legislature corrupted. So that in no point of view can I see that thu resolution attached to this report can be sustained upon any solid. wollmatured. wellconsidered judgment of the law and history of parliamomtary proceeding. If correct in this. it brings us to the more paial question in this ease. If Euglish law is not appilcable to elections by a State legislature. or if it he truie that it is to a certain extent. and that if you find less than a majority to be corrupt. you may nor declare the election to be invalid. what remedy have we? Is it so that we cannot rid ourselves of a man who by his acts would poison the fountain of political Power ? No. Mr. President. the clause of the Coustitutio which I have read. requiring twothirds of this body. twothirds of the represeutatives ofthe States. to concur before any State shall bo deprived of one of its representatives. is the repository of the power which we can exercise. if there is grounl to exorcise it. and that brings us. as I have already said. to the painful question in this case. I may he permitted to say that I approach this part of the subject with peculiarly painful feelings. Mr. CALDWELL is a native of tim county in which I live. ho is the son of an honored father. His father was honored among business men. honored amnong patriots in his life. When his country called hins. he gave up his business. and. at the head of a company of my fellowcitizens. wont into the Mexican war. He returned from it shattered and broken in health. and he now lies in a grave honored and respected by his fellowcitizens. because of the fragrant liemories that surround his name. When his son came here I greeted him gladly. learning that lio was a business manone who by his industry and energy had exalted himself in the estimation of his fellowcitizens of Kansas. And. sir. permit me. in passing. to say that I cannot consent that the fact that he had not hitherto been known in politics is to be urged against him as a reason why wo should conclude that he was guilty of bribery. Why. Mr. Presidett. the time has been in some States. and I trust it may not be long until it shall be so in all. WVhen the peopie same to the conclusion that because a uni has bcee useful. honest. and honored and successful in his business. that is the best reason why he should go to the Senate. And. if political status in Kansas is properly represented by such political lazzaroni as have surrounded and victimized this man. and as have brought this case here. it is the best reason in the world why political status there should exclude a ia froi this body. Take Carny and Clarke as they stand upon this record. I do not know them. but I take them as they have portrayed themselves. Read the speech of Carnicy. the presiding olicer at the meriug called by CALDWELLS followcitizens after lie was elected. congratulating them. the people. and the legislature who were there assembled. ant wishing them great joy upon the cloctiou of his fellowcitizen. CAnDWivL.. Look at him here trumpeting his own shame to the world. agreeing that he is a political trader. seeking a political following. making himself a candidate for no other purposo than to make morelandiso of his principles and friends. and grab gold for getting out of the road of a rival . and Clarke saying himself that in his interview with CADIWeIrT. he declined to make an arrangement for the purpose of having his expenses paid. hut that li should see Stevens. and any trrangoemont made with him would be sutisfactory. anl then eok at him dogin. the steps of CALDiWtLr aronnd this Capitol. and never an interi ow ouding without a reference to thu $15.000 for expouses. Hfeaven save us. Mr. Prside:it. if politicias of that stnain tire to exclude the business muon of Kansas from rise Senate of the United States ! But I have been led off by this. This is no reason why CALDWEmLL should be founl guilty of bribery . and referring agains to his history and to the associations that Were connected with his name. I must say that. hitving found him here gentlenlanly. correct. and honorable in his deportment. I approached this testimony with every predisposition ili his favor. But. sir. duty must be done. and with Carney agreeing that lie made the bargain for $15.000. with Mr. CnwELL himself agreeing that lie paid the money. with the fact that all Carneys followers voted for CALDWEL.. with the fact that there is a dispute about $7.000 more. and that dispute is whether Carney got it for himself or whether it was left where menbers of the legislature carried it off asa bribe. nd the fact that this $7.000 came from Mr. Smith. who was the recognized agentof Mr. CALDWELL in lalking the negotiation with Carneywith these fats before me. discarding all the testiiuony that is hearsay and in conflict. discarding the testimony of all the doubtful men. discarding the testimony of min who had that turn of reputation which caused them to be approached for their votes with a bribethrowing that all out of the question. while there is not enough hero to invalidate the election. to set aside the act of the legislature of Kansas. under the law as Iview it. am I painfully brought to the conclosion that Mr. CALDWELLS business sagacity did not keep him out of the hands of men whom lie should have avoided as lepers. and that. when lie agreed to leave his business and go up to Topeka. he encountered the iate of the inan who went down to Jericho. he fell among thieves. I wish I could say that he turned his back upon them. lut. sir. my duty here will not permit me either to yield to that which the Senator front Illinois [Mr. Looxce-) referred tothe clamor which would demand an innocent victimor to shield the dearest friend I have. if I think his act has a tendeney to poison the fountain of our political life. With these ibelings. and with this view of the esimo1y. not seeking to infinene the actiou or the opinions of Senators who are now my fellowtJudges and my fellowjurors. Ishall strive to approach the decisioc of the question withthat stern sense of justice which will alike revolt from the sacrifice of a victim or the shielding of a friend.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 64 | Mr. SCOTT | Unknown | SCOTT | Unknown | M | 618 | 1,199 | 03141873.txt | 36,102 | 6,407 |
430,000,768 | Mir. President. this question seems to have talcen so much of a legal turn that a layman may hardly feel it safe to mate any comments upon it. and I should not subunit any remarks at all but tor the fact that ivy own views ditter so widely from some of the eminent Senators who have discussed it that I feel it incumbent upom me to place on record the views which will govern my votec. This is a case involving the largest amount of alleged corruption of any in the history of senatorial elections. The payment of some part of a considerable sum of money is openly confessed. It would be strange if such a case did not admit of a just. legal. and definite solution. The highest pleasure and duty of genators will be to shield the innocent in spite of all clamor. and in spite of all unspported charges. and it will be equally their solemn duty not to clear the guilty in spite of all personal friendships and iu spite of all party attachments. I regret that such a task. through no fault of ours. has been imposed upon the Senate. but. being imposed. it must be met. The party involved here seeks to avoid our jurisdiction hy setting forth the fact that he made the contract for the payment of money when he was a private citizen and before hin election. Pray. when would such a contract or such a bribe be made 7 The absurdity of making it after the election is sufficiently obvious. The money must be secured previous to the election or not at all. It appears to me that this plea of lace of jurisdiction on such grounds is too untenable to be worthy of further notice. Again. our jurisdiction is sought to be avoided under the plausible argument of hate rights. or the plea that a State legislature has the right. if it so pleases. to be corrupted without let or hindorauce. and that a candidate for the Senate. being a citizen and of proper age. cannot so far disqualify himself by any conduct. however disreputable. that the certificate of election. under the broad seal of the State. will not secure and hold for him a scat as the peer of all other Senators. Reasonable claims for State rights are to be respected. but this is so clearly a claim for State wrong that I cannot think it should be confounded with any idea of State rights. Ia such a case the State may have been cruelly defrauded. the investigation of the proper committee may subsequently prove it. and yet. without the requisite action on the part of the Senate. there is no power left to the State tbr redress. The Senate alone must act as the guardian of the rights of the State. There seems to ban very proper feeling of relnetauno about destroying the reputation of a Senator by any action that may be taken here. I filly sympathize with this feeling. and rejoice that reputation is held to be something very precious. but I deny that any reputatiou can be destroyed in a body so just as the Senate. except by the conduct of the Senator himself. and is it not a little singular that it appears to be necessary. in order to sustain the repitation of Mr. CALlDWELL. to charge with perjury so largo a nulber of witnessesI Such men as Siduy Clarke. for years the liepresentative in Congress frout Kanbas. Thomas Carnoy. recently the governor of Kansas . and D. R. Anthony. mayor of Leavenworth. must see their reputations tumble and fall in order to build up on their ruins that of Mr. CaLWELL. This may be judicially fair. I do not know . but I shall not outer the debatable ground as to the credibility of witnesses. There is only one point in the case which I care to consider. While there is abundant testiony tending to show that money was oxpended proftisoly in the Kansas senatorial election. by which. if true. the legislatnuo was largely debauched. and while l ai incliued to dispute the legitimacy aid propriety of all such expenditures by candidates as immoral and nurepublican. yet the ite. disclosed by a writtou contract. provon by witnesses. and atvowcd and defended by Mr. CALlOWELL. by wie1 lhe agreed to pay anl did pay to Thomas Carny the sul of $15.000 ill consideration that Carmy should withdraw from being a candidate against him in 1871. is the chief fact upon which I feel it to bo my duty to make some comments. The question is. will the Senate suffer this record to stand as a precedent which may be safely followed for all time to conic by such as have the means and are not restrained by other virtues. or shall it be promptly stamped with the disapproval of the Senate as a corrupt bargain that makes the election which follows one which should neither be tolerated nor defended? By our action we must either disapprove or approve of the means by which Mr. CALDWELL 8ecured his election. and. as I am unable to do the latter. I shall briefly give the reasons that will govern my voto. Technically. the paymna of the large sum of money to which I have referred may or may net amount to the crime of bribery. to be punishednisder statutolaw. Yet to me it wears the livery of bribery. and can those who think otherwise assign to it any element of greater purity? It was not. it is true. the direct price paid per capita for votes. but it was a lump sum paid to a contracting party for the same object. and calculated to be even more potential and successful in practice. It was to seduce and capture by wholesale rather than detail. Tie winner of the race need have little merit if his compotitors should all. one after another. be held back by fifteen thousand dollar gifts or bribes. Such bribes can be made for no other purpose than to purchase the goodwill and iufluoince of a party supposed to be able and willing to transfer support equal in value to the money received. The party wo accepted in this case such shameful gains. Mr. Carney. with a vulgar venality that would be discreditable among jockeys at a horserace. perpetrated. with the direct aid of Mr. CxLDWELL. a gross fraud upon those members of tho legislature who were elected. or who might reasonably be counted upon as his supporters. or over whom he had any controlling influence. and who were kept in innocent ignorance of the way and manner in which they had been bought and sold. Their trusted leader. throwing away all the character won. if any had been wo. in a lifelimo. barters them in the lump. without risk or recourse in case of aiy failure to deliver the entire batch. more or less 1 No. Mr. CALDWELL was too shrewd to take the entire risk. and $5.000. therefore. were made contingent upon his election. This operated as abond upon Mr. Carneypecnniary ligatures only being strong enough to bold hinandsecured his active services in behalf of Mr. CALDWELL until the victory was won. Carney was not to be held responsible for the transfer of all of his friends. but. to the extent of the lest five thousand dollars. for so many as would secure the resalt. If that was not secured. then he forfeited that much. There is no complaint that Carney did not exert all the influence he possessed to carry out the contract. so as to become entitled to the full anount agreed upon. whether it was a good bargain or not. and. in the end. after sone vigorous dunning. he got it. It is not denied that Mr. Carney. in good faith at least to his employer and with eminent bad faith to his State. earned his money. It may not have been a difficult job to prove to the legislature that Mr. CALDWELL was a better nina for Senator than Mr. Carney. and certainly this job of the intriguers appears to have boon speedily accomplished. The whole extent of the influence exerted cannot be corputed. nor is that at all important. The withdrawal of an energetic rival is calculated always to paralyze and break down all other opposition. In this case we only know that victory followed. and it appears.to have followed in the wake of a pecuniary flood. But it may be asked. was this fifteen thousand dollar payment a bribe. or anything wrong after all? I will not insult the Senate by sayinug to Senators "Put yourselves in his place." and asking if any one Of you could sno suca thing. For while none would like to do it. some might still think it not so very wrong for somebody else to do. A definition is of little consequence where the facts of the ease furnish a definition. but let os look for a moment at the definition of the word " bribe ." and one is set forth to be. " to pervert his jufdgment or corrupt his action by some gift or promise." If the money paid by Mr. CALDvELL -was not to pervert the judgment of Mr. Carney. for what purpose was it paid? Before the money was paid. very clearly Mr. Carney and his friends in the legislature considered
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 65 | Mr. MORRILL. of Vermont | Unknown | MORRILL | Vermont | M | 1,200 | 1,330 | 03141873.txt | 8,616 | 1,576 |
430,000,769 | less fit for the place of Senator than himselfhe may have been mistaken. and I think he wasbut his judgment was perverted. changed sn the twinkling of an eye. and the $5.000 not only wrought that miracle with Carney. but with his legislative friends and supporters. It is plain that Mr. Carneys judgment was perverted as well as that of those over whom he wielded any control. The action logically requird aid expected at his hands was corrupt. It was not that he should rutire sa enaididato from iry convictions of personal propriety or political rectitude. or from a sense of honorable duty to tse State of Kansas. but that he should retire as the purchased tool of Mr. CiLDWELa tool with which to make tools of the legislature of Kansas. When an election has been made under such circumstances. it is tainted at the fountain. and the least. the very least. the Senate of the United States can do. is to give the legislature of Kansas the power to revise its action in view of the facts which have been uncovered. and which at the time of the election wore as much unknown to the legislature as to the Senate. Tho Senate of the United States h.s often been climod to be the first deliberative body ii the world. but that claim could not long be maintained after it shall have boon ascertained that it can usost surely be reached by those having tholongest and most uuscrupulous purse. Wealth honestly acquired is not a crire. nor a disqudulication. it is often indicative of wisdom. integrity. and economy. but wealth honestly acquired must not be permitted to be used for a dishonest purposemust not be permitted to buy its way into the Senate directly or indirectly. or by bribing legislative electors singly or in squads. Any person who gains an entrance into the Senate by the expenditure of largo sums of money to buy off opposition. not only inflicts an incurable wound upon our form of government. but be cannot avoid the suspicion. whether it be just or unjust. that personal reimbursoment will be sought at the very first opportunity. Using money to get office is absolutely no worse than using office to git money. The party who does not shrink from the first cannot logically be expected to shrink from the last. The discovery of such flets destroys the usefulness of a Senator. It is impossible that it should be otherwise. On this point I cannot forbear referring to some of the testimony. It may be all false. but it seems to be alluded to in a good many places. On page 17. we find in the testimony of Sidney Clarke the following: Ho indulged in a good deal of conversation. apologized for not effecting the octlement with Stevens. and said to me that the election had cost him $75.000 in mooney. sod that lie was very poor in ready money. and that some railroad trnpaics had agreed to psy him. or to pay.a portion of his expenses. and that. as they had ailed to nake good their agreemont with him. he w. watching an eptortZ.jity lor them to get some measure before Congress. so that he could squeeze it out of them. Again. I refer to the testioony of Thomas Carney. on page 194. The question asked of him wasWhat did h ssy about the Kansas Pacifio Railroad. how did they owe hint money. what for? Answer. lie said that le f~lt that they owed him some money. and it would he to their iotrest to pay it. for they would get no logslation favorable to them uatil they did pay him. i he could preoveut it. I refer again to the testimony of the same witness. on page 203: Question. Did he stote at any time how much money he had sent forl Answer. iNo. I do not remebloer titer ho did. I heard bni on ne oiccasion state that the Kansas Pacific Railroad Company had just paid him $10.000. I heard him state that. By3 Mr. AsyTnONr. Quisti. Who stated that? Answer. Mr. Sith stated to ne that the Kansas Pacific railroad Company had just paid him $1.000. that be liei some currency now. Now I refer to the testimony of Thomas J. Anderson. on page 77. showing that this railroad company did pay a considerable amount of money: Question. Have yon the means aof doterualning how much money was used by the Knsas Pacific Railroad during the ondency of this election I Answer. No. sir. I have not. Question. Could it be ascertained I Answer. I think not. not that I know of. Question. How was the moncy paid. who was it drawn frem Answer. I was in the habit of drawing: the attorn y would draw. sometimes the agent. for the amount necessary. when we did not have the funds. I refer again to the testimony of the same witness on page 85: Question. How much money was opanded ? Answer. In the interest of the Kansas P eifi Rilroad I Qu estion. Yes. or for any mposo about the legislature. Antswer. I do aiot know. Question. Can you gtve the committee any ideal Answer. INo. Sir. I do not think 1 can. Then I refer to the testimony of John P. Usher. late Secretary of the Interior. on page 447 : Questioun. What did Mr. Perry tell you 7 Answer. Ro told (as well to lean ronomber) that. after CALoXwELS election. he went up to Leavenworth to ee sim. and congrattlated tim on his elcotion. and to his surprise CALDWeo told him tat lie wanted 1iti topa $30.000. which he (r. Perry) declined to pay. Mr. Petysiid ho was verymuch surprised at the demand. aid so expressed himsecif to CArDrVL. intilttingthult a1t ho bad 1teen AeOecssfel. and had been elected United States Senator. that was honor enough. without makitg a demand of that cort of him. and he should not respond to it at all. Question. Did Mr. Perry in that eonversation say anythitg aboutseeing Colonel )onnis ad Mr. Anderson in regard to any promises which Mr. CALDWELLc laimed to have been made by these gmuaomen for the Kansas Pacific lailroad I Answer. Yes. lie did. Question. State what. Answer. Re said. as I Understood thm. that CALDWELL claimed that lie was jstilled in making th rt totoanh. is esnequcoco of aems premise that he had had hero from Mr. errys frionds. Question. Are you able to state any other part of that conversaton which yen hove not already stated. judge I Answer. He said that he did net believe it. and they would come op here and see whether it was so or not. he wanted to know. Accordingly they did come. Le. Smith and CADWELL cam. as I understand. Question. Do you know wAt the result of the ioquiry was Answer. Ro said that these gentlemen did not adait what CALDWEL said. loot did not stand as squaroas he woud have liked them: that he was aot satisfied. bit t hat ther might have been semoLbing said. but at ony rato ho would not pay anythinog. Question. Did Mr. Perry. in any parl of this conversation. state to you the grond or the purpose upon wiicls ar hor which Ca.oLDWELL made this demand I Answer. I dont know as he did. I do not know Ce he said why. or whether ie was out so much. or whrt he said about it. At any rate. he was importunate fti the mussy. and came once or twice about it. This Perry was president of the Kansas Pacific Railroad. If there is any color of truth in these multiplied statements of men whom the people of Kansas have largely trusted. and I do not know whether there is or not.then tho promise of corruption is painfully conspicuous.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 66 | Mr. CALDWELL | Unknown | CALDWELL | Unknown | M | 1,331 | 1,461 | 03141873.txt | 7,163 | 1,314 |
430,000,770 | Will the Senator from Vermont allow me to make a suggestion to him there ?
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 67 | Mr. LOGAN | Unknown | LOGAN | Unknown | M | 1,462 | 1,463 | 03141873.txt | 74 | 15 |
430,000,771 | I have only a word or two more to say.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 68 | Mr. MORRILL. of Vermont | Unknown | MORRILL | Vermont | M | 1,464 | 1,465 | 03141873.txt | 38 | 10 |
430,000,772 | It is in connection with the testimony of Mr. Usher. I presume the Senator does not wish to intimate to the Senate that Mr. Usher was a witness before the conimittee of the Senate.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 69 | Mr. LOGAN | Unknown | LOGAN | Unknown | M | 1,466 | 1,469 | 03141873.txt | 180 | 34 |
430,000,773 | No. sir. this was testimony taken beftre the Kansas legislature. Mr. Usher testified there under oath.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 70 | Mr. MORRILL. of Vorniont | Unknown | MORRILL | Vorniont | M | 1,470 | 1,471 | 03141873.txt | 102 | 16 |
430,000,774 | Yes. he testified there that Mr. Perry had told him this. but Mr. Usher never had any conversation with Mr. CALDWLL. It was ncre hearsay. and not sworn to at all.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 71 | Mr. LOGAN | Unknown | LOGAN | Unknown | M | 1,472 | 1,474 | 03141873.txt | 162 | 31 |
430,000,775 | The testimony was rend in the committee.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 72 | Mr. MORRILL. of Vermont | Unknown | MORRILL | Vermont | M | 1,475 | 1,476 | 03141873.txt | 40 | 7 |
430,000,776 | If the Senator will allow me. it was testified by Anderson himself that Delis. the man naxited there by Perry. did draw the draft for $10.000. and that A1derson cashed it. and then Carney testifies that Smith told hins that he got the money for eleetion purposes.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 73 | Mr. MORTON | Unknown | MORTON | Unknown | M | 1,477 | 1,481 | 03141873.txt | 263 | 47 |
430,000,777 | I do not desire to get into a controversy about this matter.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 74 | Mr. LOGAN | Unknown | LOGAN | Unknown | M | 1,482 | 1,483 | 03141873.txt | 60 | 12 |
430,000,778 | I prefer to close what I have to say.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 75 | Mr. MORRILL. of Vormont | Unknown | MORRILL | Vormont | M | 1,484 | 1,484 | 03141873.txt | 37 | 9 |
430,000,779 | Allow me one momont. I am astonished to hear the statement of the Senator fron Indiana. Mr. Anaderson testifies that this $10.000 was used for paying taxes and for the perpose of giving dinners to members of the legislatutre t sOCeure legislation for the riochload. There is no connection with this caeo whatever. That is the testimony of Mr. Anderson.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 76 | Mr. LOGAN | Unknown | LOGAN | Unknown | M | 1,485 | 1,490 | 03141873.txt | 352 | 60 |
430,000,780 | If the Senator from Vermont will allow me. Mr. Anderson did not testify that. Ho said he did not know what was done with the money. but he tnderstood it was to pay taxes in the county of the railroad. Upon further inquiry it turned out that this money was drawn on the 22d of January. just two days before the election. The penalty on the taxes had attached on the 10th of January if the taxes were not paid. There was no proof that the taxes were not paid. On further examination ie said that the company was not at all embarrassed. It is a great company. and the prosumption was that the taxes were paid. Then. in lis testimony he gave two accounts of it. He said the reason he cashed the draft was because there was no money in the treasury 6f the company to crsh it. and then. on a further examination. he said the reason lie cashed the draft was because it was drawn upon the treasury at Stint Louis. far distant. but Smith says he got that money. and Andersons testimony and Smiths testimony corroborate what Usher swears to in regard to what Perry told him. precisely.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 77 | Mr. MORTON | Unknown | MORTON | Unknown | M | 1,491 | 1,507 | 03141873.txt | 1,075 | 203 |
430,000,781 | I merely state this to be the fact. as I stated yesterday. that there is not a scintilla of evidence in all this book which shows that one dollar of that money was ever used. directly or indirectly. in connection with the election of Mr. CALDwELL. Tie only statement is that the railroad attorney. living somewhere else. drew a draft for $10.000 on Saint Louis. and Mr. Anderson says be thought it was drawn to pay the taxes of the railrnad company. There is no explanation whatever in conuection with it except that Mr. Anderson states that he spent the money there in wines and dinners. not in connection with this election at all. but for the purpose of obtaining railroad legislation. That is all there is about this $10.000. and I am astonished that any Senator should attempt to show that the $10.000 htad anything to do with this election. for there is not one word of testimony alowing that fact.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 78 | Mr. LOGAN | Unknown | LOGAN | Unknown | M | 1,508 | 1,521 | 03141873.txt | 904 | 162 |
430,000,782 | Mfy dmily pnrpose in bringing forwavrrd these bits of testimony was to show that there was a considerable anmont of concurrent testimony that Mr. CALDWELL did propose. wherever this railroad company desired firrther legislation. "1 to squeeze money out of them." and that they had been in the habit of contributing money for political purposes. Mr. President. the practice in Great Britain in cases of bribery by members of Parliament has been to fine. imprison. or to unseat the guilty member. and even the places whence such members came have been disfranchised. To evoen pay the traveling expenses of voters is there accounted bribery. and punished as such. But I do not care whether the precedents of aristocratic governments make for or against the ease we have under consideration. though I should deplore any decision that would provoke an unfavorable comparison with tho American Senate as to the purity of the election of its members. The success of ou system of government largely depends upon its absolute incorruptibility. There must be no suspicion that the will of the people has been perverted or circumvented by undue and unlawful appliances. Tho Senate of the United States makes its own precedents and erects its own standard. This is its duty. and it cannot be shirked byjumnpiug bhind the sereen of any foreign authority. The Senate has been constituted the solo judge of the clection. returns. and qualificatitous of its members. We are to judge of elections. and may or may not accept of what a legislature calls an election. A Senator onco admitted cannot be removed by a State legislature. Any wrongfirl act in the premises must be redressed by the Senate itself. or go unredressed. mnd the Senate is clothed with ample constitutional authority. not only to viodiente its own honor. but to protect the honor of the State which may have been wronged in any real or pretended election. returns. or qualifications. For sufficient reasons it may expel a cmember. and that touches our own sense of honor. and for sufficient reason may we not say that an election is invalid. that the returns are frandluent. or that the qulalifications are deficient ? Must every election. howeover eotuinnnated. be treated as valid by the Senate? Their judgment is not to be delivered capriciously. there must be gravity in the offense. or in the facts twhich make an electiou void-
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 79 | Mr. MORRILL. of Vermont | Unknown | MORRILL | Vermont | M | 1,522 | 1,564 | 03141873.txt | 2,385 | 399 |
430,000,783 | does aot appear to have been conscious of any wrong in the lavish use of money to secure his election. Being A man of wealth. it appears to have been understood by a good many of the picople of Kansas that it was a vary proper and nice thing for him to do. to pay liberally for their support. But I cannot believe Lhab the majority of the people of that growing and gallant State are so demoralized as to be willing to treat tle election of 1871 as good and valid and to be unquestioned forever. Mr. CALDW-.LL. it is likelyias nuade a grave mistake if he supposes his standard of politics and lorality provails everywhere. for I think I ate safe in saying it will ho repitalated by Kansas. and it neverwas. andu nover willhe. accepted in the United States Senate. If this election is to be taken as all index of tie general state of the political licalth of (anssand I do not believe it isthon it is tune the sharp. extreme medMoiio of th Constitution was administered . and certainly it is time that Kamsas shoiuld have an opportunity to put lers lf right before tile world by a now senatorial election. without spot or blemish. and where. at least. it will not be followed by an attempted justification of a fifteen thousand dollar bribe. Most business men have heard of forestalling the mnarket. which means intercepting whatever my lhe ot its way there. This operation. of coarse. if successful. enhances the price of whatever happens to be in the market. The public are fleeced. being obliged to take at any cost whatever they can get. But did any one ever bear that such conspiracies in trade were called honorable? If not honorable so far as a corner in grain or cattle is concerned. how can a corner be justified in candidates for the United States Senate? The valne of a candidato might thus be temporarily raised. but it would be likely to fill with a rrh when the corner was over. Morcantile honor blushes at such transactions. and ca that of the Senate be supposed to be less fastitious t A word or two more. and I shall have lone. To assert that the Senate canuot declare an election invalid wherever the forms of m election lhire been preserved. or where some persont tis rctivetd a minieirty of all the votes cast. a quorum liig present. though tie eleetiot is spotted all over with corruption. is to deny alt power of relief. auid reduces the Senate from the rank of judges of elections to that of mere recordingclerks. To assert that thIe Seate eannot judge of miny qualifications savo those particularly mentioned in the Coistitutielof age and citizenshipwonld force the acitnission and retention of lunatics and idiots. We admit members by a majority vote upon mere prinnafacie evidence. and when we conie more tunturely no consider this evidence. uipon finding it inadequaate. can we int emanele the member by the seine majority that give him admission I When. upon a more serioas examination of tho case. a dis(tialificLatim is found which wouhl have been. had it hees known and acicil upon. a bar to the original aedunissiun. cannot such i member be let go in any other way than by ocpuileiou and a twothirds vote? TIis woud seem to me like sticking in the bark. and ol this theory the almlission of members on pirbeafiaio evidence becomes a snare aid a delusion. In a ease like the present. where the disqualificationt would. I regret to believe. seem to justify expnhsion. and whih I shall feel compelled to vote for. if the case shall not be disposed of in the milder form proposed by the committee. I have no insuperable difflsclty in asserting tihe power to ntsoat. or to declare that the party has not been duly and lagally elected. Nor do I believe this power would ever be abused by the Senate or by any party in the Senate. or exerted except when clearly and indisputably demandoel. If the Senate of the United States has not this power. thou it is the most helpless of all legislative bodies in the world. and it slul never again look beyond certificates of election. cover again institsta investiittions. lest it should find something which it might just as well not have found. The plain question for our decision is. can a Senator be duly and legally elected where money has been corruptly used to buy up and extingnish legitimate oppositiont F or myself. I sliall iel bound to answer no. Mr. SC[UIRZ obtained the floor.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 80 | Mr. CALDWELI | Unknown | CALDWELI | Unknown | M | 1,597 | 1,666 | 03141873.txt | 4,355 | 777 |
430,000,784 | With the permission of the Senator from Missouri. in asinuch as the speech of the Senator from Vermont has gone in the direction that Mr. Carney was hired not to be a candidate. I desire to cell the attention of tie Senate to the testimony of Mr. Carney. Oil page 190 Ion will find that Mr. Carney testifies as follows : In the first place. Mr. Smith asked me if I was going to be a candidate myselfSpeaking of the contract between Mr. Smith and himself which was afterward aceded to by Mr. CaDWiLLand I said no. that now I was not a candidate. and did not expect to be a candidate. I said. "It is A (Ieestie n I amn sirprised at your asking. You have been with me all snmmer. in lexas and New York. for for or firo imoaithe." and the thing had ben talked aiiiit day after (lay. perhaps fifty tios. anl I had said that under no eiremsttaunes wouid be a candidate. and I lad taken no part in the elction.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 81 | Mr. LOGAN | Unknown | LOGAN | Unknown | M | 1,667 | 1,679 | 03141873.txt | 903 | 176 |
430,000,785 | I desire to call the attention of the Senator fron Illinois to the written agreemoent. and to ask him if lie supposes than oral tostimony in going to do away with a written contract? Here ic the written contract. dated January 13. 1871: I hereby aigree that I wili not. ceadar anyr eondittou of cireumnstanes. be acudi. dte fr thme Unrmitedl States Semate. in tle year 1871. without the written coisent of A. (t LDWELL. ted in case I do. to forfeit my worl of bonor. herey piloded. I fairther agree cnd bhld nyself to forfeit tinle lm of fifteen thousanit dollars anid authorize t0 pohliCatinof this agroemeni. T"os. GARNE. TorrKA. January 13. 1871. I understand the rule of law to be that whro there is a written contrat. you cannot do away with it by oral testimony.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 82 | Mr. MORRILL. of Vermont | Unknown | MORRILL | Vermont | M | 1,680 | 1,691 | 03141873.txt | 768 | 138 |
430,000,786 | Nor go outside of it by oral testimony. That is exactly tle point I desired the Senator from Vermon to state.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 83 | Mr. LOGAN | Unknown | LOGAN | Unknown | M | 1,692 | 1,693 | 03141873.txt | 109 | 21 |
430,000,787 | I do not state that. Yen may explain it. bet you cannot do away with it.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 84 | Mr. MORRILL. of Vermont | Unknown | MORRILL | Vermont | M | 1,694 | 1,695 | 03141873.txt | 72 | 16 |
430,000,788 | Very well. The point that I wanted to make. and I desire the attention of the Senate in reference to it. is this: first. Mr. Carney swears lie was not a candidate. did not intend to be a eandilate. and tnder no circumstances whatever would he be a candidate. That is the first proposition that lie swears to. Now. why did he make tle written agreement l Becanso he then proceeded to blackmail Mr. Caun wHc.U and made the agreement. Thero is the point. Te Sonator says that Mr. Carney withdrew ns a candidate for $t5.000. Mr. Carney swears lie did no such thing. for hero is his testimony. Then the Senator says Mr. Carney agreed to nse his influence. aadhlie wants to bind us to the written agreement. The written agreement says nothing about influence. Hone I say he is in adileina take whirl horn holmay. First. the agreement precludes the idea of influene. and. secondly. ]is oath precludes the idea of the fatct stated in the agreement. There is the precise condition in whiels yea place him. That is what I wanted to show.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 85 | Mr. LOGAN | Unknown | LOGAN | Unknown | M | 1,696 | 1,711 | 03141873.txt | 1,027 | 186 |
430,000,789 | Mr. President. every Senator who has spoken upon the subject beforeushas treated it a a matter of lost painfal interest. and quite naturally so. for nobody could approach it witihout reltanco. It is hardly possible that there should be the least personal or political bias in this debate. at least none unf orable to the gentlemas most nearly eoncerned. As far as I know. the conduct of the Senator from Kansas ot this floor has been uniformly inoffensive and courteons. He has. I presume. no personal eneny here. We also know that in case lie shodd be removed from his scat in the Senate. the logislatur of Kansas is certain to pit a successor into his place who ill ho of exactly the same part y complexion. and thbre can. therefore. be no political loss or gain involved in a change as to party strength on this floor. If there over was a case whirh might lIe treated upon its owi nierits. i is this. We have to meet here. first. a question of law . secondly.i n question of factc. amd then. also. what I might call a question of policy as to the rigorous or lenient applicationa of the law to tile facts and the person. In discussingtho question of law. I invite the Senate to assume a state of ficts as fully established. Suppose a persoc has taken Isis seat here. elected by a State legislature. presenting when he appeared among uis regular credentials in the correetest form. and proving by tire usonnl evidence that in his election every prescription of law had bees felly complied with. Suppose. then. It is subsequently shown that the elotion of that porson was oflTcted and carried by gross bribery. suppose a clear casa diseleses stelt ot a purchase wtth moe of a seat it tle Senate of the United States. The thol itlacstion arises. has the Senate any power to protect itself by the exclusioc of such a perso It? Au argument has been submitted lay the Senator from Kansas. aod as that argumneint goes further in its assumptions than any ether. I will disenss it first. lie says the Senate cannot unseat that person by declaring the election invalid. because the Senate has not the eonstitntional power to go behind the regular certificate of election. signed by the governor and bearing the great seal of the State. and. secondly. he says that tile Satate cannot expel such a person by a twothirds vote. because the act of bribery was committed before that person was a Senator. and the jurisdiction of the Senate cannot date back to an offense committed antecedent to the election . ergo. the Senate has absolutely no power at all in such a case. If I understood the argument submitted by the Senator from Kansas correctly. these were its salient points. What follows ? The Senate must sit still. and with absolute quietness and submission suffer not only that person to take his seat. but. as the case may be. must suffer one after another of these seats to be filled by men who have acquired them by bribery. purchase. fraud. and not by honest election. for to each one of these cases the same reasoning will apply which is now applied to this. Howover outrageous their proceedings. however glaring their corrupt practices may have been. we must treat such political merchants as brother Senators. we must suffer them to exercise the same infleence upon thelegislation of this Republic which is exercised by others. and all this. no matter what may become of the honor of the highest legislative body of this Republic. no matter what may become of the confidence of the people in their lawmakers. and therefore of their respect for the laws. no matter what may become of te purity aid integrity of representative government and of republican institutions. This. sir. is the argument submitted by the Senator from Kansas. It would seem to me as if the mere statement of the consequences which necessarily must flow from such an assumption would in itself be sufficient to show that in the very nature of things it cannot be correct. that the wise men who made the Constitution of this country cannot have left the highest lawgiving body of the land in so pitiably helpless a condition. The mere supposition appears on its very face absurd. Now. in inquiring into the power of the Senate to act upon such a case. I shall not consume any time in a discussion of the English 1precedents which have been quoted here. and this partly for the reason that I am not as learned. and have act made myself as familiar with their details as others. but mainly because I consider those precedents by uo means conclusive. whe we have before us a doenmont which gives us all the law we need. and that is the Coustitution of the United States. The Constitution provides in the first place that the Senate. as well as the House of Reprusentatives. shall have the discretionary powerto expel a member by a twothirds veto. That power is not limited to this or that offense. but it is vested in the discretion of each House of Congress. and it has already been demonstrated with irrefutable arguments that althou h an act of bribery by which a person lifted himself into one of these seats was indeed antecedent to his beconiing a Senator. nevertheless that act of bribery. being the very steppingstone upon which he rose into his legislative office. is so intinately connected with his becoming and being a Senator that the two things cannot be separated. that therefore this power to expel a member must necessarily apply. This is so clear. so selfevident. that not a word more is required. But fie Constitution of the United States provides also that "cacti Louso shall be the judge of the elections. returns. and qualifications of its own members ." and in discussing that clause. I shall give particular attention to the remarks submitted to us today by the Senator from Pennsylvania. [Mr. Scorr.] It strikes me that in this discussion one thing with regard to the meaning of the constitutional clause just quoted has been overlooked. and that is the very important fact that this clanse of the Constitution applies to both Houses of Congress exactly alike. that its meaning for both Houses of Congress must be exactly the same: for it reads that "Each House shall be the judge of the elections. returns. and qualifications of its own members." No difference is made between the two. What. then. can that clause of the Constitution mean I Wo have to judge of three different things: first. of the "qualifications." and what they are the Constitution itself states. then of the returns. and what they arowoall know. but we have also to judgeof the elections-" eleetions" kept distinct from "qualifications." and from " returns." The qualifications may be complete. the returns may be in the most perfect order upon their face. and yet the Senate as well as the House of Wpresentatives. both under the saine clause of the Constitution. which must neccessarily mean as to both Houses the same thing. have to apply their judgment also to the election of their respective members. What does it mean. I asic ? Must it not mean that the judgment of each House shall not only go to the forms. but also to what I might call the essence of an election? IHas not each Louse to judge whether that which pretends to be an election is in trutl and reality an election or not? If the word election" in that clause of the Constitution means anything. it must mean that. if it does not mean that. it means nothing. N/ow. does anybody question. has anybody ever doubted. that the House of Representatives has always hold so under the constitutional clause which applies to both Houses alike? "The House of Ropresentatives has always exercised the power. under this clause. to judge whether a nan had been really. and honestly. and legally elected by a majority of the legal votes cast. Ilas it over been qnestioned that the Louse of Representatives had the power. under this clause. to declare an election illegal and void. if that elcetion had been coutrolled by bribery and fraud I As far as I know. nobody in the world has ever questioned it. and you will notice that power was exercised by the House of Representatives by virtue of identically the sane clause of the Constitution under which we. as Sewtors. are to exercise our judgment.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 86 | Mr. SCHURZ | Unknown | SCHURZ | Unknown | M | 1,712 | 1,850 | 03141873.txt | 8,223 | 1,444 |
430,000,790 | As the Senator is paying attention to the argument which I lmade. will he permit me at this moment to ask him a questieu ? Mr. SCl[URZ. Certainly. sir.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 87 | Mr. SCOTT | Unknown | SCOTT | Unknown | M | 1,851 | 1,854 | 03141873.txt | 151 | 29 |
430,000,791 | That ther may be more analogy in the exercise of that power by the House of Representatives. let me suppose this case occurring in an investigation therethat ii ascertaining the right to vote of an elector who participated in the election of ai moiber of the House he claims to have been naturalized. and voted as a naturalized citizen. and the allegation is made that his naturalization papers were procured bybribing one of three members of a court who granted them. would the committee of the House stop in their investigation and run off into the collateral question of the bribery of a court for the purpose of determining the qualifications of that elector ?
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 88 | Mr. SCOTT | Unknown | SCOTT | Unknown | M | 1,855 | 1,864 | 03141873.txt | 664 | 115 |
430,000,792 | The question which the Senator puts to im is an exceedingly intricate one. and would involve the right of the House of Representatives to go behind the action of the court. I must confess that I do not see what hearing that question has upon the case now under consideration. but I see what the Senator is driving st. and I think in the course of my remarks I shall satisfy him at least as to my own opinion.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 89 | lr. SCHURZ | Unknown | SCHURZ | Unknown | M | 1,865 | 1,871 | 03141873.txt | 408 | 79 |
430,000,793 | I will toll the Senator. to relieve him of all doubt. what Ian driving at. The court is a coordinate department of the Government. especially a United States court. and its action is certainly as high. and entitled to as great credit. as the action of a legislature. and if you cannot go off upon the collateral question of the action of a court to set it aside by showing that one of its members was corrupted. I need not say to the Senator that the argument can be applied to this case.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 90 | Mr. SCO.TT | Unknown | SCO.TT | Unknown | M | 1,872 | 1,879 | 03141873.txt | 488 | 93 |
430,000,794 | Well. suppose it cannot. but the case brought forward by the Senator from Pennsylvania applies to a coordinate branch of the Government. and not to a body bearing to either House of Coigress the relation of a constituent.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 91 | Mr. SCHIURZ | Unknown | SCHIURZ | Unknown | M | 1,880 | 1,883 | 03141873.txt | 221 | 38 |
430,000,795 | It may be to a State court.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 92 | Mr. SCOTT | Unknown | SCOTT | Unknown | M | 1,884 | 1,884 | 03141873.txt | 27 | 7 |
430,000,796 | The Senator may find an answer to his question by investigating how false naturalization papers. or naturalization paecrs obtained on false pretenses. have been dealt with. But here we ave to deal merely with the relations between those who have been elected Senators and Representatives in Congress and their respective constituencies. and I shall submit some remarks upon that very point which will define my opinion. and I hope will prove satisfactory to the Senator from Pennsylvania. Now. one thing has been accepted is a legal maxien from time immemorial. and that is. that fraud vitiates a contract. vitiates a bond. a judgment. Who will deny that fraud would vitiate also that which we might call a conditional relation between a constituency and a representative. and the legislative branch of t06 Government ? Bat if each House is constitutionally the judge. not only of the qualifications and of the returns. but also of the essence of au election. must it not have power to judge whether an election is vitiated by fraud or iot I The House of Representatives hs always acted ou that principle iy virtue of the constitutional provision conferring upon the Senate auth the House the same power in the s.me language.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 93 | Mr. SCLURZ | Unknown | SCLURZ | Unknown | M | 1,885 | 1,903 | 03141873.txt | 1,225 | 205 |
430,000,797 | I should like to ask the Senator a question there.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 94 | Mr. BAYARD | Unknown | BAYARD | Unknown | M | 1,904 | 1,904 | 03141873.txt | 50 | 10 |
430,000,798 | Certainly.
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 95 | Mr. SCHURZ | Unknown | SCHURZ | Unknown | M | 1,905 | 1,905 | 03141873.txt | 10 | 1 |
430,000,799 | Tiho Senator spoke just now of fraud vitiating all contracts. or vitiating everyLhig that it touched. I believe the proposition wits as broad as that. Let me ask the Senator whether he considers that fraud would vitiate the final decree of a court of competent jurisdiction? Would fraud vitiate an act of assembly I
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 96 | Mr. BAYARD | Unknown | BAYARD | Unknown | M | 1,906 | 1,910 | 03141873.txt | 315 | 54 |
430,000,800 | The Senator knows as well as I do that maxims of that general character are sometimes waived for reasons of public convenience. It is a wolasecrtined fact that if an act is passed by a legislative body. and the passage of that act has been effected by bribery. the courts of this conntry will not go behind such action by the legislative body. The reason for this is. that if they were permitted to do so. an infinite ramification of consequences might be offooted. the whole system of our laws and of private rights might be thrown into inextricable coafusiou. But when a case of wrong can be redressed without involving such a ramification of consequences. without creating such a confusion of legal rights. that is to say. when a ease stands there by itself. and cai be niidone without great public inconvenience. as the election of a Senator or Reprseitative can be undone. the same reason and rule does not apply. I think. therefore. that the Senators question doesnot touch til subjeetunder discussion. I was just stating that the Louse oif Representatives bcs always acted upon the principle I mentioned by virtue of the very power conferred by the Censtitution upon both Houses alike. in exactly the sme languagelanguage which. applied t.o both Houses. must noecssa rly have the seine meaning. for if it had not. certainly those who framed the Constitution would have stated and mode clear the difference. Thon. I will ask. why net the Senate ? flat it is objected that the position of a Senator is widely different from the position of a Representative. that a Senator represents a State. that the election of a Senator by a State hegislatnre according to law is the conclusive act of a State sovereign in its sphere. cud that.. if dilycewrtitied. itennot li questioned. it is claimed that there is a certain mysterious power attaching to the great seal of a State affixed to a certificate of election whief is foreign to the oertifdto of" election of a Representative. I nied not say to the Seiate that I ai as fire an advocateo ard defender of constitutional State rights and of local selfgovernment as any member of this body. but I affirm that the Constitution does not give a State sovereign control over its Senators. but it does just the reverse. True. the Constitution provides " that the Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State. chosen by the legislature thereof for six years. and each Sen ator sb all have one vote. Insofar Senators may be regarded as the representatives of their respective States. and undoubtedly they are. But the Constitution does not regardthe election of a Senator asin every respect a matter of discretion with the State. The Constitution does not permit a State to appoint a Senator just as it pleases. The Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate by law the manner in which Senators shall be elected. just as it gives Congress the power to regulate by law the manner iu which Representatives shall be elected. The only difference is as to the place of election. Congress has made such laws. prescribing on what day of the session of a legislature the election of a Senator shall be proceeded with. how the votes slall be taken in both branches separately. how in joint convention. and so on. Why does the Constitution put the election of Senators thus under the control of Congress j ust as it does the election of members of the House of Representatives V Because the Constitution does not regard a Senator as a mere diplomatic agent of the State. of one sovereignty near another sovereignty. appointed to take care of the interest of that State only. and remaming under the control of that State. By no means. The Constitution regards the Senate of the United States not as an assembly of State agents. but as a branch of the legislative department of the General Government. It regards a Senator here as being appointed to take part in legislation concerning the interests of all the States and of all the people. and. when once elected as a member of that legislative department. that Senator is during his constitutional term of office entirely. completely out of the control of his State. just as the member of the House of Representatives is out of the control of his district constituency. The Constitution indeed provides that the unmber of Senators from each State shall be two. undoubtedly to preserve as much as possible a certain equality of the influence of the different States upon the legislation of the country. It indeed provides that Senators shall be elected by the State legislatures. looking upon the legislatures as more representative of the individuality of the States. and also possibly to secure to the highest lawgiving body of this country a superior class of men. But in point offact it is absolutely certain. and it cannot be denied. that. while the constituencies are different. the relation of a Senator. whoa once elected. to his constituency is in no essential point different from the relation of a member of the House of Representatives to his. and I defy denial of this feet. Neither the Senator nor the Representative can be recalled. The Representative and the Senator are equally out of the reach and the control of their respective constituents. With regard to the Senator therefore. the sovereignty of the State becomes utterly inoperative ns soon as the fact of his election is accomplished. Whon the Senator has once been elected. even before he is sworn into office at that desk. the State has no power to reconsider that election. nor to recall him. And now. sir. when it is discovered that the election of a Senator has been effected by fraud or bribery. has a sovereign State the power to undo its own act to set itself right? Not at all. Not even the discovery udo before the Senator has taken his seat would enable the legislature to reconsider its election. It can. in such a case. only memorialize the Senate of the United States. setting forth the facts. aud then the Senate only can act in the case upon its own knowledge and judgment. for the Senator has passed entirely out of control of his State. and entirely within the control of the Senate. Thus. when the people of a State have been defrauded. say by the purchase of a senatorial election. they are. with all their sovereignty. bound hand and foot. and not the State. but only the Senate. can furnish the necessary relief. Now if the Sente. by virtue of its constitutional powers. does declare a fraudulent election invalid. does that constitute what was called here an encroachment upon the rights of the State? Let us see. In what would such encroachment consist? Not in this. that the Senate in declaring such an election invalid arrogates a power to itself which belongs to the State. for no such power ever belonged to the State. and certainly you cannot encroach upon a power which does not exist. You might just as well say that I arrogate to myself your right to draw upon my deposit in a bank. or that I encroached upon your right to educate my children. Nor can that pretended encroachnmnt consist in this. that the State isthereby deprived of its elected rupresontative. for. ir the case I have assumed. first. that representative is not legally elected. secondly. it must be presumed. in common sense and decency. that the State would rather desire to be relieved of arepresentative who has defrauded it. (end I include.in the term "representative." Senators also.) and that it would itself annul its own act if it had the power to do so. which it has not. and. thirdly. the State is not deprived of its representation nor of its choice. for upon tie unseating of a member for such a cause a new election will be ordered in the ate at once. the whole matter is turned over to the State legislature for its action. and it may elect the same person turned out by the Senate if it so sees fit. The whole pretense. therefore. of ar encroaehment on the sovereign arid rightful powers of the State vanishes into utter nothing. The State retains unimpaired the frll scope of its constitutional powers and rights. The Senate. by annulling an election carried by fraud or bribery. only does by virtue of its constitutional powers what the State would be glad to do. but cannot. and when that is done the whole matter is turned over to the State once more in a new election. aid the State after all is the final arbiter. The exercise of this power by the Senate does. therefore. not impair. bat. looking at it without prejudice. you will find that it virtually protecta the rights of the States. I have now endeavored to show. in a way at least satisfactory to myself. if to nobody else. first. that the power to act as the judge of tre election of its members means the same thing for both Houses of Congress. secondly. that it covers for both Houses of Congress alike the power to vacate a seat filled by an election carried by fraud or bribery. thirdly. that by the exercise of that power by the Senate. no constitutional rights of the States are impaired. liut. sir. we are reminded that the resolution now before us for our action has no precedent in the history of the Senate. 1 admit that. but Senators will be obliged to admit also that the disclosures here made have no precedent in the hisetory of this body . and for the honor of the American people I will suppose that were there a precedent for the one there would be precedent for the other. that if such a ease had ever been disclosed to the American Seiate. then the American Senate would have found a remedy. and would not have hesitated to apply it. liut if there is no precedent in our past history. is it not time to make one ? All precedents are once made for the first time. aud I hope. if such a duty devolves upon us. we shall not shrink fron it. it is said. also. that the acceptance of the doctrine upon which this resolution is based would arm a bare majority with dangerous powers. Sir. there is certainly the possibility of an abuse of the power. I feel it keenly. There is no power on earth over so carefully guarded but is liable to abuse. It is the nature of power. But I invite Senators to consider whether the danger on the other side is not more to be dreaded than the danger on this. What will be the consequence if. under circumstances such as arc now surrounding us. we do reject that doctrine which gives us the power to declare a seat vacated upon the ground of bribery? Look around you. It is not from Kansas alone. it is from different States. that rumors reach us of the election of Senators by bribery. undoubtedly groundless in some casesutterly so. I hope. but. in other cases. bearing a very serious appearance. Do we not all krorv that after two senatorial elections within a few months. those who had presented themselves as senatorial candidates were arrested upon charges of bribery and are now under indictment ? I am very far from desiring to prejudge any of those cases. but the testimony here before us discloses a tendency of a most alarming nature. which I am afraid is not confined to one State. not confined to one portion of the country. Here I come to the question of fact. We have been advised by the Senator from Wisconsin to read this testimony. and then to form our own conclusions. I have followed that advice. or rather. I acted upon my own impulses in doing so before the advice was given. I have road this testimony. every line of it. as carefully and conscientiously as it was possible for me to do. and now. sir. what do I find hero? I find a man unknown to the political world. After the learned definition of the phrase. "political status." which was given us yesterday by the Senator from Illinois. [Mr. Loe An. I will not applythat term. I will simply say that he had not signalized himself by conspicuous public service. that he was unknown to political fame. that lie had given no evidence of uncommon ability in a public career. that. in other words. he had not shown those qualities which usually are apt to draw upon a man the eyes of the people with reference to high political office. That may be nothing to the dishonor of the Senator from Kansas. for not all men have had the same opportunities. But it appears as a fact that he was mainly distinguished by one thing. and that was. an uncommon abundance of money. He appeared as a candidate for the Senatorship surrounded by a horde of those political managers. whose whole political wisdom consists in a knowledge of the low tricks of the trade. in the handling of the appliances of corruption. And behind that group there loomed up one of those great moneyed corporations which now so frequentlytbrust their hands into the legislation of this country. who have already acquired so dangerous a power. and are threatening to extend it in a still more dangerous degree. He first buys off one competing candidate for $15.000. cash down. who did engage to transfer to him his following in the legislature. as so many head of cattle. So serrouded he steps upon the scone. The cry goes forth that there is money in that election. much money. money for all who are willing to aid. The presence of the temptation stimulates at once every vicious appetite within its reach. One man who has a vote obtains money for casting it. another learns of it. and asks himself why Ie should cast his veto for nothing. The frequency of the practice blunts the individual conscience. and that legislature is transformed into a market where votes are bought and sold. It is thus. as I read this testimony. that Mr. CAnnEIaa was elected a Senator of the United States. Now. sir I find here not a mere isolated instance of the indiscretion of an overzealous friend. but I find here bribery systematically organized. I find here a bacchanalian feast and riot of corruption. And when yon read the tesbinio"y your imagieation will fairly recoil from the epoctarlo of basentess and depravity that presents itself. Well. sir. from tie testimony as I find it. one thing has become clear to my mind. it is that this is not one of those eases of bribery in a single instance which we have heard spoken of as tainting an election. and. therefore. I do not discuss the question whether by a single case of bribery the election would be invalidated. nBut what has cecomo clear to my mind is. that Mr. CALDWI.T.E could never have been elected Senator of the United States but for the corrupt use of money all around him. Iin other words. it was the corrupt ise of money. and nothing else. that effected aed carried that election. Sir. I ask nobody to believe iy mre statement and assertion . I invite every Senator to take this testimony ino his own lands. to read it word for word and line after line. and if they do ntt come to the sane conclusion let them not vote as I shall. If I were a jurynau. acting nuder the oath of a juryian. called upon to give my verdict. sIcy verdict would be as I have smted. and let me say o Seiatomwhto have discussed the question of the facts that that discussion has strengthened rather than weakened my conviction. Sir. it is to be feared that caoes like this are not entirely isolated. antd I bog you to consider that they certainly will not stand alone if you permit a case like this to pass with impunity. Let me ask you. what can we do. what shall we do. under such circtmstanees? What is the dirty of those who have arrived. from their study of the case. at tie same convictions that I entertain. and I know there are many tnpon this floor S Shall we say that althongh the testimony convinces us that hero a. seat in the Senate has been purchased with money. yet that seat shall be held by the purchaser as if it had been acquired by an honest and fair election ? Shall we declare. are you. Stnators of the Unitel States. prepared to declare. that when a man buys a seat upon this floor. buys the high quality of at Senator of the United States. and pays for it. it belonge to him as his property. and that. according to thefifth article of amediment to the Constitution. no private property shall be taken for public use without just coenpersation? Is that the light in which you look at a transaction like this? Shall we increase the temptation already working to so fearful a degree by assuring to the purchaser of a seat in the Senate of the United States frl security bf enjoyment I Iave yone considered the consequences of such indulgence? Let me ask yoer attention to one of them. Today. Senators. we may still be able. when we know that a seat has been acquired by pirchase. to vacato it by a majority vote. but if you encourage this practice by the promise of impunity. do you know how long it will be before so many of these seats are tilled ly parchasers. that the struggle will become utterly hopeless? This is not a more dark fancy. not a mere ollispring of a morbid imagination. The country at this very momeinct is ringing with the cry of corruption. Ig it without reason? Never before have the agencies been so powerful which seek to serve private Interests by a corrupt use of money. ancd never before has tie field of political life been so well prepared for their work. The same causes will always and everywhere bring forth similar effects. We have had a great civil war. That civil war. with its fluctuations of values and its tempting opportunities for the rapid acquisition of wealth. has left becind it a spirit of speculation and greed stimulated to most inordieate activity. There is prevalent a morbid desire to get rich and to indulge in extravagant enjoymeonts. and the moreit grows the greater will grow also the unscrupulousness of men in tie employnmnt of means to attain that end. Btt more tlha that. oro than ever before has the Government of the United States extended its funections beyond its legitimate sphere. more thar ever has the public Treasury been pressed into the service of private interests. Do we not know it all 7 Do we not see and understand what is going on around us ? I ask you. sir. what is it that attracts to this iatoniona capital the horde of speculators and monopolists and their agents who so assiduously lay siege to the jodgment and also to tle conscience of those who are to give thecountry its laws? Whatis it that fills the lobbies behind these green doors with an atmosphere of torptatio so seductive that manuy a man has fallen a victim to it who was worthy ofa better fate? What is it that lea bronghet fortla etnh eselanlcholy. sich deplorble exlihibitions as tee cointry witmesse.d last winter--exhibitions which we should have been but too glad to hide from the eyes of cie world abroad? It is that policy which seeks to use the power of this great Republic for the advantage and benefit of private interests. it is that policy which takes money out of the pockets of the people to put it into the pockets of a favored few. it is that policy which. wherever it has prevailed. in every age and every country. has poisoned the very fountains of legislation. Do you think. sir. thrat the consequences now and here will be different from what they have been at other times and elsewhere? Are not your great railroad kings ant monopolists boasting today that they own whole legislateres and Sto goveriuoents ad courts to do their bidding? Have we not seen some of them stalking around in this very Capitol like the sovereign lords of creation Are not some of them vaunting themcselves now that they have made and can cnake iprofitable investmenets in members of Congress and in Senators of the United States ? Have we trot had occasion to admire the clarming catholicity. the dolieios cosmopolitan spirit with which these gentlemen distribute their favors. as ws shown before the Credit Mobilier committee of uhe House. when lir. Durant testified that when he gave money for tn election. it was entirely indifferent to him whether the man was a dniocrat or a republican provided he was "a good man ?" And now let them know that a man who has purchased his seat here. or for whom it has becen purchased with money. wilt lie secure in the enjoyient of the property so bought. and. I ask you. will not their enterprise be limited only by their desires. and will not the rapacity of their desires be limited only by their opportunitiesV As long as such evils are permitted to exercise their influence. they will spread with the power of contagion. and nothing but the most unflinching resistance can cheek the evil. Such. Mr. President. is our condition. Everybody sees it . everybody fools it. everybody knows it is so. and if we do not. the people of the United States do. And we must not be surprised if now and then tie voice of some organ of public opinion comes to us with a loud comislait of the pu.ianiity of Congress in dealing with such things. The Senator from Wisconsin the other day spoke of it with a somewhat lofty contempt as the clamnor of the umob. It may be suh soitbimes. but let us see what mob it is we have to deal with new. I will read a few newspaper extracts about the Credit Mobilier investigation of the House: The Ronse of Representatives--This was written while the proceedings were still going onThe Houso of Representatives is presenting just such an opportunity in its treatment of the Credit Moblior question. It is acting as if it lackeud the curoage tofollow the men who have thrown the first stone. The evidence against ili00Ks and Ames is overwhelming. It is their own ovidene. The only possible ground fr exeusing them is that what they have done is not bad for Cogroessmen to do. The ease of all Congressmen who iav held Credit Iobilier stock is also plain. Tue stok -as an imlroper ont to bold. It created an interest in doIfraljog the Government. To refuse to censors the holders of that stock is to say that the congressional standard of morals is not high enough to condemn it. Now. gentlemen. do yon know what paper published this article ? Not the Nets York Tribeue. or the World. but the New York Times. Here is another. written after the Credit Mobilier proceedings lead closed: The action of the House of Ropresentatives on Judge PeANDs Credit tobilior report. in onbstituting a vote of censure and condemnation for the resolution expelling Anies ant BRoOKs. and passing over the ether inculpated members without notice. fell far short of the jost expectations of the country. It was a clear case of moral cowardico. an unmanly shirking of responsibility. After rejectis a resolution which involved denial dof its right to expel Ames and BRIS for ie fonfee with which theY were charged. after finding them guilty Y.a more than twothirds vote. the cse adnpto a resolution which virtoi oclar s that a member may offer or accept a bribs and yet not be disqualifed frm retaining his seat in Congress. Absolutec ondemnation mstat Oe te verdict of tie country o sucih a lamentable eehibition of saral ouillanimity. Who was the man who wrote that article ? ItappearediuHaTcrs Weekly. and I presume was written by our friend the Hen. George William Curtis. Now. sir. such words are not those of papers which are in the habit of finding fault with the Administration and the majority. The party service rendered by these papers justifies us ia sapposieg that suele words were extorted from them by facts which they could and would neither deny nor gloss over. and certainly. when they speak of publie scentiment. they will not make that public sentiment appear in a darker color than it really bears. I do not quote this lagurago as having the least possible direct or indirect bearing upon the merits of the question new before us. but I quote it to show you a fact which to us as to every citizen is of the highest possible public importance. That fact it is useless to disguise. rnd we had better fully understand and appreciate it. it is toat the confidence of the American people in the integrity of their public men is fearfully shaken. That is the truth. aud nobody who knows the country will deny it. Whatevryou may thin k of the causes which have brought forth this result. whatever of the justice of this sentiment. one thing is certain : the fact itself is a public calamity . for. as has often been said in these days. and as can never be repeated too often. what is to become of the respect of the people for the laws if they lose their confidence in tho lawmakers ? I say tis not in order to cast a slur upon any one. but to admonish the Senate not to forfeit or jeopardize or weaken that confidence which it may still enjoy. But the Senate will weaken that confidence if. with such evidence beore its eyes as confronts us here. it refuses to employ that power which it wields for the protection of its integrity. for the people would be justified in thinking that. if we permit seats here to be bought. we cannot. if we were willing. prevent legislation from being sold. I would listen to tho clamor of the mob just as little as any man oin this floor. neither would I. in order to gain the confideaco of the mob. descend to do a thing which my conviction of duty did not clearly command. I would face the mob without flinching to prevent a wrong. But I would not treat with contempt. I wousld treat with respect. that popular voice which calls upon me for nothing else lint that I should fearlessly do my duty. I am far from asking anybody who. upon a conscientious examnination of the evidence hofore us. has not arrived at the same conelusions that have grown np in my mind. to itote as I shall vote. but to those who have formed the same convictions let me say. there is something higher at stake here than the fate of onoidividual. whom we might regard with sympathy and compassion. something higher also thar the danger that night possibly grow from an abuse of power by the majority in vacating seats or aiunllhg elections. and Ihat something is the purity. nay. the very existence of the representative clraracter of our institentions. Yose speak of prurtisees roohelesocess that might niserupulnously enleploy such an power for- its own selfish ends. I know tlat danger as well as any one knows it. I fear it just as much is rey one. I am certainly not inclined to underestimate it: but I retreat yon to coesider that. by assuring inpunity to such olibcises its we are here dealing with. by seciring the full fruits of
| S | "1873-03-14T00:00:00" | 97 | Mr. SChIURZ | Unknown | SCHIURZ | Unknown | M | 1,911 | 2,337 | 03141873.txt | 26,344 | 4,707 |