Datasets:

Eugleo

/

us-congressional-speeches

like 0

Mr.President. I do nod rise fur tie prpose of diecussing the evidence in the ease of the Senator from Kmsnias. bit to say a few words. if I properly may. in reply to the allusions made hy the honorable Senator who has just taken his seat as to the action taten in another body with reference to persons a3cused of complicity in the Credit Mobilier. As I understand the treatment of that mattot by the House. there was no avoidance whatever of responsibility and no cowardice. The first. and Certainly one of the most important questions for that body to decide. was whether it had jurisdiction in the case. The events which were testifiedto occurred more than five years before Che lmse was called upon for action. Two olections by the people had intervened. three. in fact. but two hefore that Congross. The Jiliciary Comiiiittee iadi reported as their judgteit. with hut a single disseit. if I remember correctly. that the House had no jurisdiction unider such circumstances. andi we were brought face to face with tie Iulstiui t which would be presented in a erimital court where a nan was brought before it accused of a grade of offensei higher than its jurisdiction. whether it should entertain jurisdiction or not. litia case ih a criminal court. if there was any circmnstance affecting its jurisdiction. tite point. of course. would be whether it should not lirst dtermine if it could try the questioi at all. T[ike oncilasion arrived at oni that point. which govrued the proceedilgs. was thret there wts nojirisdiction. nid it was expressed ill a resolution. which was proposed. that "grave doal.uts" upoi tha point existed. In feet the resolution was not strictly trite. for with time great majority f the Indy there were no doubts upon the point. thero wtas no dubt thet ti jurisdiction existed. I have cI decided opinion tihet. if those eveits han bheea more recent. there would have been expulsion in the case of two of the persons who were niamed in those resolutions. the two who were subsequently cesored. but. for cte very reasoi ththe hore was no jurisdiction to expel. the House refused to expel them. It is very true that there wore resolutions of severe cousure passed. but this was not. as bins lien sunemtiteps assuiited. ie violation of the prineiple thattthere was ojurisdietio iu the matter. It was as expressioi of opinion upon certain conducet. an expression of opinion like that which either Hleso nitty snake oU any outrage coUni l by a foreign power. Ai expres sion of opinioin which it might inake against the en Ititimi cc ol the slavetrade or of slavery by any foreign powr .tgaiut cruelties in India or it Citla. not assening jurisdiction overthose nations to try. determine. or puinish. but simply an expression of tIm body that such things were highly repreheusiblo. and itl that spirit that censure ws ntaude. With reference to other persons who wore named. the testimony was not clcr upon several points. It was not clear that the cind if stock in which the were dealing was explained to them. It wis not clear that they snderstood the objects of the corporation in whose stock they invested. that any extraordinary protits were to arise from it. any nuusnal advantages. or that it was to interfere in aiy way with their duties as members of Congress. There was an almot universat commendetion in the press it that timo of Mr. Ames for his energy in building the Ptecific Rilroad Wholnt edtors had failed . whll every otlier eipany or couceru which attempted to push it forwaril had failed. and lie alil taken it tip and was pushing it apparently to t suceessful concelsion. and there may have ocenn slatural cii hanlable desire on the part of those gentlemen to participate in the glory of iding in such ani enterpriso. However that may he. it lid uot appetr that they ever wore influenced in their conduct. or intended to do anythiig corrupt. I specie of the matter as it appeared from the Coatimony. and. as I believe. iu the judguient of the House. I shoeulil to add one word further as to my individual opinion of those gentlemin. I hal sat in Congress witl Ihoi for year after year . I had soon them in their official relations. I haid observed themi in their personal conduct. and I say. and I believe I spun for a great teny mmbers of the Houso with reference to some of these

S

Mr. SARGENT

Unknown

SARGENT

Unknown

M

03141873.txt

I believe some oilier members of the Senate desire to speak on this question. I move. therefore. that the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive business. and let this debate go over until tosnorrow.

None

Mr. MORTON

Unknown

MORTON

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

Will the Senator withdraw that motion for a moment I

None

Mr. CARPENTER

Unknown

CARPENTER

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

I move that when the Senate adjourns today it adjourn to meet on Monday next.

None

Mr. CARPENTER

Unknown

CARPENTER

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

I now renew the motion for an executive session. The niotion was agreed to. and the Senate proceded to the consideration of executive business. After twety milnutes spent in executive session. the doors were rcopened. and the Senate (at four oclock and five minutes p. in.) adjourned.

None

Mr. MORTON

Unknown

MORTON

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

The Chair wil1 lay before the Senate two memorials. sigiied by members of the legislature of lissouri. in regard to the recent election of Senator from tsat State. and also the majority and minority reports of the coniittee of the legislature of the State on the sanie subject. These uemorials and papers will be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections. if there be no objection.

S

The VICE-PRESIDENT

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

03171873.txt

I offer a resolution.

S

Mr. WRIGHT

Unknown

WRIGHT

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

When was that resolution offered ?

S

Mr. THURMAN

Unknown

THURMAN

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

I have just offered the resolution. It is a resolution of inquiry to the Committee on Rules.

S

Mr. WRIGHT

Unknown

WRIGHT

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

I object to its present consideration.

S

Mr. THURMAN

Unknown

THURMAN

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

I give notice that I shall call up the resolution tomorrow morning. I ask that it be printed.

S

Mr. WRIGHT

Unknown

WRIGHT

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

The order to print will be made. if there he no objection.

S

The VICE-PRESIDENT

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

03171873.txt

I believe the unfinished business is the resolation reported by the Cousmittee on Privileges and Elections. If I a in correct. I desire. as I have to leave the Senate at an early hour. to submiit a few remarks upon that resolution.

S

Mr. SAULSBURY

Unknown

SAULSBURY

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

If there be no farther Senate resolutions. the nlinished business of Friday last is now before the Senate. The Senate resumed the considerutien of the following resolution. submitted by Mr. MOnTON on the 6th instant: Resolved. That A mrXAxoFs CaLDWELL was nt duly and legally elected to a seat iin tie Senate of tie United States by the legislature of th6 State of Kansas.

S

The VICE-PRESIDENT

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

03171873.txt

Mr. President. the report of the Committee on Privileges and Elections. in reference to the Kansas case. presents to the consideration of the Senate two questions. one a question of fact. and one in referene to the power of the Senate to deal with the question of fraud. when connected with the election of a member of this body. I do not propose. on the question of fact. to make any extended remarks. but simply to state the conclusions of my own iniud in referaoce to the evidence submitted and accompanying the report of the committee. Ithink it cannot be questioned. by any one who looks carefully into that testimony. that There was great corruption. great fraud. practiced in the election of the Senatorfrom Kansas. Without specifying theparticular parties affected bytie fraud. without pointiug out particular members of the Kansas legislature who were carrupted. and whose votes were controlled by the use of money. I think is cannot be doubtedat least such is the conviction upon my own mindthat. but for the use of corrupting influences. the Senator from Kansas would never have held a -seat in this body. I shall not have the time. and do not iow propose. to review the evidence submitted with the report of the eomimittee. but simply to state the conclusion to which I have arrived from an examination of that evidence. The report of the committee and the proofs in the case have been before us for more haun two weeks. and every Senator has doubtless examined them for himself. I shall therefore content myself witI announcing my own convictions in justification of the veto I shall give upon this subject. Upon the other question. however. involving the power of the Senate to deal with a case of this kind. I desire Succinctly to state some views. Supposing that the fact of bribery or fraud has been established by the evidence before us. and that Mr. CALDWELL has beau connected therewith. the next question presented for consideration is. in what manner can the Senate deal with his case I On this point there is a conflict of opinion. None. I believe. doubt the power of the Senate to deal with the question of fraud in the election of a Senator when it touches the composition of the Senate. nor do I suppose that any will doubt the duty of the body to do so ii vindication of its own character and dignity. In fact. looking no further than the preservation of the character of the Senate and the respect which it should claim and merit as the highest legislative body known to our system of government. it would be difficult to conceive how any Senator could hesitate to affirm the right and duty of the body to purge itself from the presence of those who had gained admission to this floor by snch improper means. But -when we look away from ourselves and consider the consequences to ensue. front filling this chamber with members by such means. to our free institutions. the duty becomes not only clear but imperative. demanding the prompt exercise of whatever powers have been conferred by the Constitution for that purpose. In view of the public interest which we are bound to protect. and the obligation imposed by our oaths. of office to maintain our free institutions and to perpetuate the liberties they secure to the American people. we are left no alternative. The duty is upon its. and we may not escape it whenever the facts warrant the exercise of the power with which the Senate is clothed. It may be a painful duty. as it always will be to conscientiousmen. but it is none the less inexorable. and afailure to meet it would be a betrayal of a trust which nothing could palliate. justify. or excuse. This I take to be the conviction of every member of the Senate. and however much we may differabout the facts in this ease or theproper mode of reaching it. there can be none in reference to the necessity and obligation to act if the circumstances demand it. Assuming that Mr. CALDWEiLL holds a seat in this body by fraud. what is the remedy I I have said that on this question there is a dif foreuce of opinion. The committee. or at least a portion of the com mittee. who have reported this resolution. believe that the proper remedy is in declaring the election of Mr. CALDWELL by the Kansas legislature void. while others of this body. and no inconsiderable number. think the only remedy is in the power of expulsion. So far. I believe. there has been no argument to sustain either of those views drawn from the inherent powers of the Senate as a deliberative body. The advocates of each theory claim to find the warrant for the action they propose in the Constitution. Certainly the power to expel a member by a twothirds -oto is cxpressly given in plain and unambiguous terms. none. I believe. have denied the existence of such a power. whatever may be their views in reference to the circumstances under which it may be properly exercised. The power to declare the election of a Senator void for fraud is both affirmed and denied. and much of the debate to which we have listened has turned upon this point. As the views I entertain upon this question differ somewhat from the views of souse of those with whom I am accustomed to act in this chamber. I propose to state succinctly the conclusions at which I have arrived in the consideration of this question. I am not prepared. Mr. President. to deny the existence of a power in this Senate to declare the scat of a member vacant whenever it shall appear that lh holds that seat by purchasing the votes of the legislature that elected him. Such action on the part of any member would render him unworthy of a seat in this chamber. and when I look at the Constitution I find the Senate. as -well as the House of Representatives. made the judge of the qualifications. returns. and election of its members. "Qtualifications." of course. are personal to the member. referring to his age. residence. &e. "ilReturas"1 are the certificates and evidences of his election. Bat what is meant by the authority conferred upon each House of Congress to judge of the dcecties of its ninubers? It is something distinct from judging of their qualifications and the returns of election. It must mean that yea may look into the election. and judge. not only whether it took place at the proper time and at the proper place. and was the proper legislative body to elect. (for these facts must appear upon the face of the returns.) but also to see if the election was conducted in the proper manner. that is. whether is was the free expression of the legislative will. uncontrolled asd undeterred by force or fraud. Does any one suppose for a single moment that an election of Senator deterninop by force and coercion of the legislature would be a valid election. that duress controlling the action of the legislature in the choice of a Senator would not vitiate the election and resder it void? And who would doubt the power of this Senate. upon proof of such a state of facts. to declare the illegality of such an election of a member of this body ? If the Senate. under the power given to judge of the election of its members. could set aside and declare void an election under such circumstances. can it not. under the same power. declare illegal and void an election controlled and determined by the bribery oftho legislature I The duress of bribery as effectually subverts the legislative will as the duress of force or the appreheasiou of great bodily barin. lam unwilling to admit that. in either cise. this Senate could not vindicato its own dignity and the freedom of senatorial elections by treating such an election as anullity. Those who would restrict the power of the Senate. in judging of the election of its meanbers. to the simple inquiry as to whether the body electing was. in fact. the rightful legislative body. and whether it Dcet at the right place and eleced at the right time. would be compelled to admit. if these facts appeared. that such an election of Senator as I have supposed. whether controlled by force or fraud. was a valid election. and binding upon this Senate. From such a conclusion I most respectfully dissent. I do not. however. admit. but on the contrary deny. that the bribery of a single member of a legislature wouild vitiate the election of a Senator. That was the rule recognized by the British larlianient. and which I understood the Senator from Indiala [Mr. Monrox] to insist is the true rule to govern such cases. The rule adopted by the House of Commons was founded in the necessities of the timeh. and. perhaps. was proper under the circumstances existing at the time in England. The reason for the rule was to protect the freedom of elections and to prevent the undue influence of the ministry in the election of members of Parliament. Tho ministry endeavored to fill the House of Commons -with men whose votes they could control. not only to sustain the just measures of government. but to vote the nost liberal supplies and to act in everything as the pliant tools of the Crown and ministry. To protect itself from the presence of such members. Farliament was compelled to declare that the bribery of a single voter should render an election void. But that rule his never been recognized in this country. and in fact has no justification in the circumstances surrounding us. and no fitness in its application to our insrtitutions. The bribery which can render the election of a Senator void must control and determine the result of the election. It must be the means by which the election is secured. The purchase of a single vote of a member of a legislature. or of ten or twenty. or any number of votes. unless it had that result. unless it determined the choice of the legislature. and secured the election of the purchaser or the person for whom they were purchased. would not render his election void. In affirming. therefore. the power of the Senate to declare the election of a Senator illegal and void for bribery. I maintain that the fraud must he controlling in its influence and must determino the result of the election. Such I believe to have been the case in the Kansas election. and am therefore prepared to affirm the right of this Senate to .declare the election of Senator CnLDWELL illegal and void. But it is said t at the power to declare an election of Senator void for ny cause may be abused and become a most dangerous power. I admit it. That. however. is an argument against the improper or hasty exercise of the power rather than against its existence. The existnce of a power can do no harm so long as it remains dormant or is excciscd only in a proper case. It is the improper exercise of the power that is attended with evil. True. the danger of such a power becomes greater the more easily it can. be exercisedl. and in this view I admit that the power of the Senate to declare a seat vacant by a majority vote is more likely to be abused than the power of expulsion. It is. however. the abuse of the power in either case from which harin is to be apprehended. and not the existence of the power or its exercise in a ease proper fur such exercise. But let me ask Senators if the absecco of such a power in the Senate might not become equally dangerous and be atteuded with consequences the trust serious. The necessity for all legislative bodies to be able to protect themselves from tile presence of persons not properly entitled to seats therein has been recognized and admitted from time immemorial. and if the Senate has no such power. then it is an anonaly among deliberative bodies and an exception to a rule indispensable to the preservation of its own character and dignity. Those who oppose the right of the Senate to vacate a seat in the body for fraud. in the manner proposed by the resolution reported by the committee. admit the right of selfprotection to exist. but claim that it is found in the power ofcxpulsion. In support ofthis view they say that the right to expel is absolute and unrestricted save by the requirenent of a twothirds vote. That is true. he power of expulsion is un controlled by anything but the discretion of the Senate. Jt miht today be exercised upon any member of this body for cause or without cause. But. I ash. does itfurnish the meansofprotection to the Senate from the presence of persons who ought not to sit in this chamber. in all eases that maly arise. unless by its exercise in the most arbitrary and cniel manner Suppose it should be found that soie member of this body held his seat here by eorruption and fraud controlling the action of the legislature that sent him. but that he himslfwas wholly uneoniieted with and ignorant of the means by which his election had been secured. suppose sonie gigantic corporation. for purposes of its own. should buy up enough votes in a State legislature to elect a Senator. and should by such ineans place in this hall a man of its own choice. contraly7 to the will of the people of the State. and who but for such fraud would never have been thought of foe the position. and suppose that the Senator himself was unconnected with the fraud and ignorant that his election was procured by such means. would any Senator here contend that his case was a proper one for the exercise of the power of expulsion I Certainly not. In such a case you would be compelled to submit to haviag a seat filled in this body by a man whose election had been procured by the most notorious and flagrant fraud and corruption. or driven to the necessity of exercising the power of expulsion upon a man as innocent of wrong himself as the purest man among us. if the power of expulsion is the only power of selfprotection in the Senate. In the ease I have supposed. I apprehend that no one would dare to be so unjust. not to say so cruel. as to brand by expnlsiou a man for offenses not his own. 1 am free to say for one that I would net. I would sooner resign my own ceat in this chamber than be guilty of such injustice to another. It may be said that I have stated an extremo caseone not likely to occur. Suppose I have. it is only by extreme cases that you can fully test the correctness of any theory. I do not admit. however. that the case supposed is an extreme one. unless it may be in the supposition of the possibility of innocence in the person selected by the corrupting corporation as its agent in this body. When I see the increasing power of monopolies in this land. the consolidation of railroad corporations. stretching across this entire continent. and by a combination of capital and influence controlling the legislation of the States of this Union . when I hear on every hand of the potent influonce of these corporations. not only upon legislation in the States. but also upon judicial decisions . when I see them resisting all legislation adverse to their wishes and interests. and dictating the measure of public burdens they shall bear. above all. when I see them around these halls. by hired agents demanding the gift of the public lands. and asking the privilege to be permitted to rob the Treasury by obtaining subsidies under acts of Congress. I cannot repress the apprehension that at no distant day they will attempt to influence the legislation of this Senate. not alone by the influence of the "lobby." but by the bvotes of their own agents. wh.oso seats here have been purchased by the use of corporate money. unless this body may protect itself by declaring the seats of all such agents vacant by reason of the fraud practiced in procuring them. Tie remedy proposed. the power to look into the elections of members of this body. upon allegations of corruption and bribery. and. if found trne. of vacating the seat. may be a delicate and dangerous power. but in view of the consequences that may follow if such a power is denied. I confess that I should come to such a conclusion with much reluctance. Now. Mr. President. let me inquire if the power of expulsion is not also a diwgerous power. if you can go behind the outh of office which inducts a member into this body and inquire into and expel for causes oceurring anterior to that time. The power of expulsion is absolute. as I before remarked. controlled only by the discretion of the Senate. You may expel for cause or you may expel without cause if twoth irds of this body so determine. I admit it may be more difficult to procure the vote required to expel than a mere maj0ority vote. and to that oxtent the power of expulsion is less dangerous than the power of vacating the seat for fraud in the election. If. however. you go behind the oathof office. and inquire into matters occurting anterior to that time. you are treading on dangerous ground. and will find it difficult to fix a limit to the exercise of the power. I now that it may be said that fraud perpetrated in bribing the legislature is a part of the res gestil and connects itselfwid the induction of the Senator into office. and thus gives jurisdiction to the Senate of the offense. But is expulsion. I ash. for bribery in such a case not punishment for something done while the man was a private citizen. having no connoction with this body in any manner whatsoever? I do not wish to be misundorstood on this point. I am not denying the right of tic Senate to expel in such a ease. I am simply endeavoring to show that the power of expolsion is equally as dangerous as the power of declaring the election void. save only in the greater security found in the vote required to expel. In everything else the power of expulsion is as dangerous as the power to declare an election for bribery void. It is as dangerous to the right of members in this body and as dangerous to the rights of the States they represent. except for the protection found in the twothirds vote required to expel. In one aspect the power of expulsion is even a more dangerous power than that of declaring a seat in this chamber vacant for bribery of the legislature in the election of a Senator. In the latter case tie exercise of the power is restricted to eanses connected with the election. it is derived from the authority to judge of the elections. No one would contend that it could be exercised for any matter not relating to such an election. and connecting itself with the seat in this body to be declared vacant. Bet where is the restriction of the power of expolsion I None is expressly fould in the Constitution. it rests alone in the discretion of the Senate. If you go behind the oath of offieethe induction of a Senator into tis chamberwhere are yon to stop. who shall lix a limit to the exercise of the power ? There is no limnit except the discretion of the Senate. In this view of the ease I ask. is it not more liable to abuase than the power to declare an election of Senator void for bribery in his election ? Mr. President. there has been an argument against the resolution reported by the committee drawn from precedents. I have great respect for precedents. The law of the profession to which I belong is stare deetis . and if any Senator can produce a precedent in at parallel case to the one now under consideration. I shall feel bound to be governed by that case. but I affirm that no such precedent exists. I ace glad for the honor of the American Senate that this is a case of first impression. - In the ease of my friend from Now Jersey. [Mr. SrocKrvoe.] that was not a easO wliro the Sonate attempted to look into the election of a Senator on a charge of bribery. hat upon another question. The only ease which has been broughtte the notice of the Senate having the least similarity to the one now tinder consideration is the Peasylvi case. and yet the true question presented in that case was simply whether the Senate apontho presentation of a memorial from members of a legislature. prefering vague and indefinite charges. would go into an investigation . and in submitting their report. dodining to send out a roving commission to hnt up testimony upon vague charges. the committee may possibly have used expressions that looked as if they were contemplating expulsion an the only remody for the Senato if a case of bribery existed. yet I say they had not I lie ease beero them and did not decide that question. Mr. Pugh. who differed from the committee. in the discussion which followed. did maintain the right to vacate a seat for fraud. and in that discesion he put the direct question to Mr. Butler. of South Carelina. whlher the bribery of the legislature in the election. of a Senator would not render the eleetion void. aitd. if my memory serves it right. Mr. Builer admitted that such woald be its effect. I do not quote his language. but the impression made upon my mind from reading that discussion was that lie admitted. in the debate with Mr. Pugh. after the report was brought in. that if acase of bribery were presented it would vitiate the election and render it void. Therefore I say there is nothing ii the precedents that have been cited that can possibly hind the Senate. There is no authority to be derived froiti them indicative of what is the proper action in this ease. Having thus expressed my view of this slbject. I wish now to say that. wiilo I maintain the existence of both powers. the power to axpel and the power to declare the action of the Kansas legislature void. I believe that in this particular case the power to expel is the appropriate remedy. I believe itis so because the Senator himself is connected so indisputably with the frand that it becomes a case in which the ciracter of this body requires that the higher remedy. that which touches the member himself. should be resorted to. And in that view of the case I should prefer to see the resolution offered by the Senator from Mississippi passed. rather than the resolution reported by the cosu .tte. That we ought to take scee action in this ease certainly will not be denied by any member of the Senate who believes that the election of the Senator froit Kansas was procured by fraud. One consideratio demnianding the prompt action of the Senate is the proservalieu of the character and the dignity of this body. If any member of this Senate has obtained a seat here by the use of corrupt influences. we owe it to ourselves as members of the highest legislative body on earth. at least in this country. to see to it that the Senate is irged frot the presence of such a mnan. fit making use of this language. which is pretty strong. I admit. I don not wish to speak harshly of the Senator frot Kansas. From all that I have seen of that gentleman I should judge that lie was a gentiettian of kindly feelings and courteous disposition. I will go farther and say that I am ready to adnilt that. though the legal fraud connected with his case is the most glring. so far as moral fraud is eoncorned. there is not the same degree of turpitude that would have attached to die case if bribery had been committed by many other persons. He was in a new country. he was surronnded by inluences and by at state of puolic morality that palliated and invited to some extent Ihe resort to such means. and. looking from his standpoint at the question. I would not charge the same degree of moral turpitide on the act of the Senator from Kansas that I would upon myself. or upon some other gentlemen in the Senate with surroundings entirely different. if we had been connected with a transaction of the samoe kind. He acecd in obedience to what seems to be th practice in senatorial elections in his State. I say that we owe it to ourselves. we owe it to the dignity of this body. if the tlats in this case have established the complicity of the Senator with the bribery. to use the hihest power given to this body dir the purpose of vindicating its dli&sty and its character. What will be thought of the American Senate by the people of this country. what will the nations of the earth think of the American Senate. if. with a case of this kind presented before them. reported from their own committee. detailing the facts. showing the corrupting influences that were need to procure this election. what will be the judgment of the world in reference to the character of the Senate. if. with such a case before them. they fail to apply a remedy ant vindicate th honor of this body? What will be the respect which the people of this country will entertain for the Senate ? Sir. I am fearfiul that we as a legislative body have already lost caste in the pablic mind. judging from the 1tublic papers of the couintry. The scenes transpiriug in Congress. the investigations that have been going on here during the recent session. have not been calculated to imlpress very favorably public sentiment throughout the country. and I fe r the American Senate today has not that high character that it once had. Sir. I remember in the days of my youth. long before I hal any aspirations for a seat in this body. I regarded this chamber not only as the theater of the highest intellectual powers. but as the true exponent of political morality in this land. If we fail to vindicate the honor of this body by ridding ourselves of the presence of any member who is connected with and has obtained his seat by bribery. tha character will be lost. and with it will be lost the respect of the American people for ourselves and the laws here enacted. If this Senate shall fail either to declare the election of the Senator from Kansas illegal and void. by the passage of the resolution reported by the cosmittee. or to pass the resolution of expulsion listroduced by the Senator from Mississippi. it will be a virtual announcemont that seats in this chamber are for sale to the highest bidder. Men who are too conscientious to buy their way into the Senate. or whose fortunes are too limited to enable them to do so. may dismiss their aspirations for the position. The prize will no longer tempt the amnbition of the poor or the virtuous. but will become the inheritance of the mercenary and venal. Genius. learning. and fitness will avail but little in a contest with gold. and those who occupy these seats hereafter may regard their claim to them as vested and indefeasiblo because purchased with a price. I have not tiume at present to discuss more fully the subject under consideration. being compelled to leave in a few moteanss for iy home. What I have said has been prompted from a sense of pihilic duty. and iot. I trust. from any consideration nsworthy of the place or the occasion.

S

Mr. SAULSBURY

Unknown

SAULSBURY

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

I desire to ask a question of the Senator from Delaware before lie leaves tie chamber. I did not wish to iitterrupt him while li was speaking. for fear I might interfere with the tateor of his remarks. bat I wish to call his attention and that of the Seiato to the fact that. front the commencement to the end of his renarks. "bribery" and "fraud" were used its synonyuus. and he treated this case precisely as if it were a case of fraud. Is the reonarks which I had the honor to submit to the Senate a few days ago the point I made was that there could be no iquiry in referenoe to the motives of the members of the legislature if it was plain that the manner of the electio was fair. that the manner of the election was the otly subject to be inquired into. that the Senate had no right to examine into the motives of the individuals composing the legislature. Now. sir. nothing can be more distinct than "fraud" and "bribery." In bribery the motive is direct and plain. indeed. that is the very definition of bribery. but frand in law vitiates everything. it vitiates everything because the asotive does not exist. and tie individual who is casting the vote may be himself defrauded. "Fraud" is delined as "deceit. cheat. guile. deception. trick. artifice. stiutlety. strecage. imposition. A "bribe" is "a reward given to any one. especially to a judge. an officer. or avoter. in order to corrupt or infuetice his conduct. And the lexicographer. to illustrate. gives this quotation froni Samuel : "His sons turned aside after lucre and took bribes and perverted judgmentY The dietiuction is is broad as it can be. It is a distinction which absolutely prevents one single word tittered by the Senator from Delaware being an answer to abny argument that has becn used on this side of the question. Ifyou conic here with the legal proposition that fraud avoids all transactions. that may be true. It may avoid an election if the voter is defrmuded. If such a course has been pursued as Ian tol hais been in regard to some of the ingroes of the Stuth. where. not being atlo to read. they were male to vote otie tickut when they suipposed that they were voting anotherif that were proved. it would avoid that tiasaction beyond all doubt Bt the very act that it was bribery is an admission that the motive was there. As I said when I spoke to the Senate before. whether the motive be love and affection. whether it he public duty and a belief that the man who is chosen is the best man. whether the motion lie a pure one or a ftil on. whetter it be a sordid anuda base motive or a noble and honorable one. whether the man be carried by personal devotion to his friend away from his public duty. so as not to select a unter who is the best ian for the place. or whether the motive b of aiy other kind. it is a motive . the man does choose. lie does select. he does the work. lie does the work so that the Soueto can get no further than to inquire whether lie lis done it. Bit. in the case of fraud. the work is not done at all. The distinction it sees to ieaid it is all I rose to sayis as broad as it can possibly be. and the Senator fioti Delaware has failed to observe that distiuetion. or I tiuk he would not have expressed his opinion as he has done this nrning.

S

Mr. STOCKTON

Unknown

STOCKTON

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

I should like to make a single remark to the Senator from Now Jersey. in that counction. on the distinction betwecn froad and bribery in a case ofthis kind. There may be frand in an election in a great many ways in which there is no bribery. but you eannot insagine bribery without fraud. An clectiou procured by bribery is essentially a fraud. it is a fraud upon the people of the State. it is a friaud upon the Senate. it is a fraud upon the nation. Bribery involves fihnd. although there may be other species of fraud that do not involve bribery. So fa~r as (healing with the motives of inttiers of the legislature is cuncerned. I subinit to my friend that that is a distinctlon withut a real difference. It is the acts of men which you inquire into. If is member of the legislature accepts at bribe. that is an act. If a candidate gives a biribe. that is an act stscoptible of proof. Yon may infer motives freut acts. but it is the acts that are proved. From the acts the law infurs the motive. If an act is frathuheit or corrupt in its character. the law infers the fraud and infers the collseneuics.

S

Mr. MORTON

Unknown

MORTON

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

R rose.

S

Mr. SUMNE

Unknown

SUMNE

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

I am told the Senator from Massachusetts rises for a special purpose. aid I am willing to yield to him.

S

Mr. PRATT

Unknown

PRATT

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

I have not risen to speak on this case. but tott MA 11 17. a question to my friend on my loft. If improper motives cannot be i xiputod to a monbor of the legislature for the purpose of declaring the election void. if we are estopped from imputig improper motives to a member of the legislature when that is the inquiry. how cal we iljut pte improper motives when the question is upon expulsion l I low is it that the same cstoppel will not work if the resolution were to expel. that does work whon the resolution is to declare the election void ?

S

Mr. THURMAN

Unknown

THURMAN

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

If nobody else wishes to answor that question. I should like to answer it.

S

Mr. CONKLING

Unknown

CONKLING

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

The Senator front Ohio. I think. spoke to ioo. Ilo said he wished to puit a question to his fiind ott the left. and I suppoe ho alluded to toe. If he did. I am iprepared to answer that question. The atswer is. because thtere is a clause in the Constitution of the United States. which I wish the Senator frot Ohio would refer to. which absolutely allhws the Senate to expel ior cause. and makes the Seiate the solo judge of the cause. If the Senator from Ohio had done me the honor to listen to me whn I spoke the other day. 11o Vould havo observed that I said tit power was absolutely unliinited. and. being unlimited. you can inquire into anything. but the instaut you find thai a man is not. in yourjudgment. a pccr of yours. yen can expel him if yo can get a twothirds vote. In the other case. the clause in the Constitution is simply that the Senate shall be the judges of the qualifications. tho elections. and the returns of its members. and. as I atempted to show the Senate on mother occasion. that simply ateans to judge of the manner and form of election. and not of the motive of the voter. In oe case your power of inquiry is unlimited. and. as I said. our fathers required it twothirds vote before you can expel. so that party passion cannot coitrol the matter. In the other case. you may unseat a man by a majority of one vote. and keel) your power permaiently in the Senate by pretending. by construction of the word "election." to examino into the motives of individuals. One is dependent upon an unlimited clanso itt the Constitution. and the other upon at clause which is limiteil ill the way through by the context in which it is placed.

S

Mr. STOCKFON

Unknown

STOCKFON

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

My excuse for not having heard my friend from New Jersey the other day was that I wes in N ew York. and I could not hear him that far. That was my misfortuie. of course. I wish. htwever. to sy that I utterly dissent from his doctrine. that thie power to expel is all unlimited power. It is a power to be exercised within the discretion of the Senate. but it is a legtl discretion. It is notn unlimited power at all. It is a power to expel for cause. In determining in its discretion what is cause. the Senate is bound to exercise. not a capricious or arbitrary discretion. hut a legal discretion. And. perhaps. at some future time in this debate. I may endeavor to show icy friend that the reason which he supposes to exist. and which authorizes us to charge corruption upon a legislature when the question is expulsion. is no sufficient reason at all. and that. if wo cats charge corruption upon a legislaturo. ot a. resolution to expel. itwill be extremely difficult. by anylogic of which I am aware. to say that you cannot. on a resolution to declare the election void.

S

Mr. THURMAN

Unknown

THURMAN

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

Will the Senator from Indian [Mr. Pit Tt] xlow me one moment to answer the question put by the Senator from Ohio Thu VICEPRESIDENT. The Senator from Indiana has the floor ott the question. but the Senator from Massachusetts rose for a special purpose. and yielded the floor to the Senator from Ohio.

S

Mr. CONKLING

Unknown

CONKLING

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

I do not wish to stand in the way of another Senator . but before it passes away. I wish to anwer the question put by the Sonator from Ohio which he gave an invitation to us all to answer. Lot rite state the question. If we are estopped from imputing corruption to members of the State legislature in order to avoid an election of a Senator of the United States. why are we not estopped to imputo corruption to members of the legislature in order to expel the Senator they elect ? That is the question. My answer is this: Upon a resolution to expel. we are not called upon to impute wrotg or corruption to the members of the legislature at all. nor to uiylody else. save otly the Senator upon whom the resolution nets. he. question solved by a resolution of expulsion is the guilt or innocence of the mencr of this body whom it is proposed to expel. not of lie intiers of any other body. I bog the attention of iy friend from Ohio to one illastration. Suppose it wore proven that Mr. CALDWELL onierod o hundred bribes toone hndred members. every one of wholm sturned the approach with such indignation that lie who made it "started like agnilty thing upon a lutful summous." aud crept away battled.

S

Mr. CONKLING

Unknown

CONKLING

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

Could corruption be imputed to the men who drove him from their presence because he dared to offer bribes? Does not such a test mnswer the question of the Senator ? If the nambr be stooped iu turpitude himself. is not that the turpitude for which you expel him I Do you explore the question whether others were corrupted or contaminated? Mr. President. I agree with the Senator in the dissent he expresses to the proposition stated by the Senator from Now Jersey. I deny that the Senate is a law unto itself to expel at its caprice. I deny tict the Senate can rightfully expol mo for spilling sand upon the floor. I dey that tie Soiae ean sit in inquisitio upon all my past lif and expel me tfor a delinquency which occurred twenty years bolore I was a Setator. The power to expel is. as the Senator from Ohio says. a power regulated by law and by legail discretion . but the Senator niust hamper it and define it narrowly indeed before he can prove that our province to expel consists in any degree in thie power to itpite corrution to members of the State legislature. or icntbrs of aly other hotly. except this body. which we purge by expulsion.

S

Mr. CONKLING

Unknown

CONKLING

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

At some future time I will endeavor to convince my friend from New York that his answer is not sufficient. I may fail. but I shall make bte effort.

S

Mr. TIHURMAN

Unknown

TIHURMAN

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

I desire to say a word both to the Senator from New York and the Senator front Ohio.

S

Mr. STOCKTON

Unknown

STOCKTON

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

The Senator from Indiana has the floor. hut yielded it to tie Senator from Massachusetts for a special purpoto. as the Chair understands.

S

The VICE-PRESIDENT

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

03171873.txt

I was not aware of that. I simply desire to draw the distinclion between power and right. The power in the Constitution. I said. was unlimited l did ot say that the right was unlimited. amd both the learned lawyers who have commented upon what I said have lost sight of that distiLution.

S

Mr. STOCKTON

Unknown

STOCKTON

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

Mr. Presidetnt. I present the credentids of my colleague. Mr. Boutwell as a Setator of tile Uiited States. and ask to have them read and tiled and the oaths of oflice adninistoreh. The chief clerk read tint credentials of lion. Gcoreo 8. Boutwell. elected by the legislature of Massachusetts a. Senator froi that State to fill the vacancy occasioned by the resignation of lion. Henry Wilson. for the term ending the 3d of March. 1877. The oaths prescribed by law havitg been administered to Mr.BouTWELL. he took his seat in the Senate.

S

Mr. SUMNER

Unknown

SUMNER

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

Mr. President. while the liscussion of Mr. CALnWELLS ease was cotnined to the mnoneibs of the committee whoso report we are considering. I felt no disposition to say a word . but Senators outside of that coimnitteo have deemed it proper to sultit their views to the Senate. and I feel that it is dne to the gravity of tile procedtre and to Mr. CALDWLL hinmiself. for whom persutally I lserish the most kindly sentinncs. that I should briefly stats tite mraseis for the vote I shall give. Iln doing so I do not seek to iiflunce atybodys vote. We are sittit g as judges in hIis case. nxions oily to do our duty. acquitting him. if we can. tinder our convictions of the law and the evidence. unsesating him. if we must. only in consequence of an overrulig sense of duty. The precise question upon which we must first vote is whether Mr. CAILDWELL wrts duly and legally elected to a seat in this body by the legislature of Kansas. Thu iesolation of the committee. which ntil this debate began I had supposed was nearly uanuions. is that Ite was not duly and legally elected. It is. however. admitted. I believe. otu all hands that an election was held by that legislature at the tine and place appointed by law. and that Mr. CALoWELL received iore votes by twentyfive than were necessary to his election. and that his credentials. founded upon the election. are in proper form and show a primafacie title to the offico he holds. Our power to deal with Mr. CALDWELL is derived from two provisions of the Constitution. One declares that the Sonateshall be " the judge of the cloctiouts. returns. and qiidifications of its memtbers ." the other authorizes the Senate to it determine the rules of its proceedings. punish its members for disorderly behavior. and. with the coneurrence of twothirds. to expel a monber." In coutining what I have to say to the pending resolution. which simply looks to unseating. and not expelling. I begin by asking what limitations are fonnd. if any. either in the Constitution or statutes. to our power sitting as judges under the first provisiou? It is coneded on all hands that the power ofjudging of elections is ajndicial power. and. being granted to the Senate. is denied to til courts. When the Constitution declares that each House shall be the judge of thu elections. &c.. of its ont ntibers. it excludes by the grant every other judicature. If the Senate may not determine whether Mr. CALnWiELLs election is legal or void. no other tribunal call. The control over this question has passed oven from the legishatum of Kansas. While that body could elect. it had no power to unseat. True. it could assume that no valid election was held. and send another Sottator here to try titles before this body with the itanbeut. as was tle case in Rhode Island forty years ago in the ease of Potter and Robbins . but it possessed no power to recall or eject him . nor. for the reason I have just given. could any judicial tribunal pass upon the question. If. therefore. we cauot in this procedure go behind Mr. CALDWELLS credentials to inquire whether nything occurred in the manner of his election which shoild Vitiate his title. then all allegations of fraud. bribery. intirnidatiou. and violence in the procuring of an election must faii of a hearitg. Mr. CALDWELLS commission must be accepted as absolutely precluding all inquiry except upon the points whether he was of the requisite age. had been nine years acitizen of the United States. aid was at the time of his election an inhabitant of Kansas. And this I understand to be the proposition of the Senators from Wisconsin. [hr. Cxnnnxrrmn.] Now York. Illinois. andPutrmsylvattia. who have spoken ugainst the resolution. They hold. if I understand them correctly. that if the returns and certificate show a valid election. not-

S

Mr. PRATT

Unknown

PRATT

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

I do not hold that. for one. I orserve the Senator enumerated me. and therefore I wish to enter my caveat.

S

Mr. CONKLING

Unknown

CONKLING

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

But. Mr. President. can this be true ? If I can conceive of a easea single casewhere it would be proper to go behind the commission to learn what transpired in the courseof the election. for the purpose of invalidating the title. then the proposition is not absolutely true. Now. let me suppose it was true in point of fact. and susceptible of tire clearest demonstration. that in order to compass his election Mr. CALDWELL marched a squad of suldicrs Into the Statehouse. at Topeka. to overawe the members of tir legislature. at the time the election was progresslig. and that such was the persuasive power of the muskets pointed at the members that a majority voted for him. To be sure. I have put an extreme case. one very unlikely to happen. and which has not happened. but the proposition must bear the pressure of every supposable case or it is not a sound one. Will gentlemen toll me that this might happen and the election still be held adid..prosviled the credentials were regular on their fae? Shall I be told that such a stupiendoue outrage could happen in a republican frm of government. tie very essence of whose system is perfect freedom of elections. anlyst no power exist iul this body. when a seat is claimed here as the legal result of this violence. to inquire into it ? Must everybody else b cogniza t of all the circumstances of the outrage except the Senate of the United States. which mist know nothing of it by reason of the bar which the commission puts up to all inquiry ?

S

Mr. PRATT

Unknown

PRATT

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

Mr. President-

S

Mr. SCOTT

Unknown

SCOTT

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

If my friend will wait until Iget through. I will then cheerfully answer any questions.

S

Mr. PRATT

Unknown

PRATT

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

I do nut wish to interrupt my friend. but. as lie alluded to the position I had taken. I wish to say that I confined my rernarks to the canoe under consideration in this cas. and not to such a case as ho has suipposed at all

S

Mr. SCOTT

Unknown

SCOTT

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

Which rests upon wholly different grounds.

S

Mr. CONKLING

Unknown

CONKLING

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

That rests upon wholly different grounds. The differeuce between bribery and violence is so apparent that I need not strito it.

S

Mr. SCOTT

Unknown

SCOTT

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

Tien I misrnderstoed the position the Senator ocenpied. I supposed his argument was that on a preposition to unseat we cold ]sot go behird the credentials. Now. sir. if in the case I have put woe could deny Mr. CALDWIMLr his seat notwithstanding his eommission. or ruseat him afterward. then it is not absolutely and universally true that we are precluded from going behiud the great seal of a State and ifiquiring into the validity of the election certified.

S

Mr. PRATT

Unknown

PRATT

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

I did not intend to interrupt the Senator. but I think be nniatntioually places all the Senators who argued this questi(o ol the other side in a falso position. I presume no man will contend for a monient that you cannot go behind the certificate for certain canses. The argument I made was in reference to this particular cause. I conld give the Senator plenty of illustrations whore the Senate could go behind the cortifiatofor instance. to inquire whether the election had been by a proper legislature or net. which has been done frequently. I hope the Senator will not say that I at least pretend that you cannot go behind a certificate for any cause. I said no such thing.

S

Mr. LOGAN

Unknown

LOGAN

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

Then I misunderstood the position of the Senator. and I cheerfully accept the correction lie has now made.

S

Mr. PRATT

Unknown

PRATT

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

I stated. in reference to the faets before usapplicablo to this ease. that it was not a ease iu which you could go behind and inquire into the election of the mrember. That was the argumentnot in reference to any other question.

S

Mr. LOGAN

Unknown

LOGAN

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

Mr. President. proceeding with the line of argument I had marked out. I say if we uray. in the instance pit. invalidate the commission on account of the duress. on account of the constraint put upon the members who voted. and because the choicecertified was not a free but coerced choice. then what reason proents our iistituting an inquiry whether fraud. bribery. or corruption in any form produced the choice? The Senator from New Jersey quoted in this conection the clause in the Constitution which declares that "the Seaate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from cah State. chosen by the legislature thereof." le did not lay too much stress npon that word "chosen." though this chamber fiirly rungwith hisearnestcrphasis. "To choose" implies freedom of will. and low can it be said a man is "(chosen" to this offie or that if the voters are intinidatecd or corrupted so that the will is led astray? Every State has its laws punishing bribery. Bribery is the act of giving or taking rewards for corruipt practices. It is a erirne inu him vho gives and in him who receives the compensation. The purpose of a bribe is to procure an advantage which thei nudisturbod judgment would not accord. A bribe is calculated to enlist the feelings and stiarulate the receiver to greater activity to accomplish the thing which the giver wants. It corrupts the judgment. perverts tire will. and shuts the eyes of the understanding in the judge. thejuror. the legislator. ad voter. wherever one holds an oflicial position having thu power to bestow what another wants. here is he precise lild for bribery to operate in. It operates on the will. and piervects the healthy action of tim mi d. Thera is lio ditrtemn t of gevernent which it umay not assail. Its whole scope is to obtain what conscience and judgment would deisy. Though no statute had over beei penned donouneing it. it would be not the less a crime againstjustice and against human rights. Since governments were organized among men. it has been recognized and denounced as a nmea esimo against justice good morals. nd the health of the body.politic. In the miistrations of governeut. bribery constantly finds its opportuni ties. After murdcr and other crimes of violence. no offense has mat with uore genIoral rebuk in all civilized corunnities. It saps the very foundations of society and thwarts the ends of all government. Now. it is found by the committee that Mr. CnuwnrTr. was guilty of bribery in procuring his election : first. in inducing Governor Carney to withdraw his candidacy tor tis Senate. and engaging him to use his influence to procure his election. and. uext. in bribing members of the legislature to vote for him. and the conclusion of the majority of the cornittee is that these acts invrdidate his election. The report purports to be the unaninous finding of th6 committee that the charge of bribery is sustained by the evidence. but the discussion reveals that a portion of the members dissent at present from this finding. Lrborious arguments have been employed. indeed. to show that the witnesses who prove it are not to be belicved. Mr. CALDWELL denies specifically every charge of corruption imputed to him by the witnesses. Bat it is a noteworthy circuarstance that. with ti opportunity of denying these dareaging Charges under oath. he preferred to submit his ease for decision upon his denial on the honor of a Senator. Free bimself to cressexamine tie witnesses. and avail himself of every inconsistency in their statements. and to contradict them at pleasure. lie does not allow himself to be put in the position of ta witness. to be subjected to like crossexamination and critieism. In my judgment. we shorild give to his statement the effect of a simple denial of the charges. arid nothing inore. It is the general issuo pleaded. or the plea of "iot guilty." ard nothing more in legal effect. What. then. is the case as made by the proofs I In the brief time I propose to occupy. I shall not enter ualton debatable grounds. so far as the facts are concerned. I leave out of the question all the testimony tending to establish bribery of the members of the legislature on tie part of Mr. C cLIAVjLL. ard confine myself exelusively to that arrangement with Governor Carney which stands substantially admitted. It is not denied by Mr. CALDWFELL that he rrnad an agreement with Governor Carney. a rival candidate. for the Soato and took from him the following obligation: I erety arco that I will ret. tider ni csnlltlon of clrurstances. to a Caellru (late for th Unitid Stares Sonate. iii the yr i71. without tir written consent of Ak. CarasWeL. iid in eelo I dio. cr iirfoit rry word nif ihono. ir ety plcdged. I firther agree an ind iryself to fortoi triou o ofifteonthousand doars. and autiorizo tho publieution of this agreement. THOS. CAT h B. Tori:AJJanuary 13. 1871. The coamittee find that it was a part of the contract. though not expressed in the written agreernent. that Mr. Carney was not only to withdraw as a candidate. but he was to give his iluenceo and support to Mr. C ALDJ i. aid they find that he was to be paid therefor the sum of $15.000. for which amount notes were given and afterward paid. the notes being given by Smith. who conducted the negotiation. but paid by CALDWrLL. They further find that one of the notes for $5.000 was made contingent upon CanLD WaLVS election. Looking over the evidence. I cannot doubt that this Nias the contract. Mr. CArLnwiiLT. himself does not deny the payment to Carney of the $15.000. but claims it was simply to defray the expenses he had incurred as a candidate. Ithink the written contract fairly implies of itself tlat the price of Carneys withdrawal was fixed by the parties at $15.000. 1 find it. then. admitted substantially by Mr. CkLDWELL that. as a means of reaching a seat in this body. he bought off one opposing candidate. I say nothing of the alleged negotiations with Clarke. another candidate. to purchase his retirement fron the canvass. because it is insisted that Clarke is discredited. Confining myself. then. to the Carney transaction. I uin constrained to regard it as corrupt and against public policy. By that arrangement he got rid of a formidable competitor. That competitor was only formidable because of the votes he could control. In purchasing Carneys support he intended to punhebso the votes of Carneys friends in the legislature. so far as that gentleman could control them. The transaction hs no significnc if it does not iean this. As a private citizen merely. and not an aspirant for the same office. his purchase would have been of little acconnt. No. sir. I am forced to believe that Mr. CAr.%nwrr counted upon those personal and political attachments which exist toward political leaders in tus bargaining for Mr. Carneys support. This fact is placed beyond doubt in my mind by the condition that the price to b paid was to be increased by $5.000 in case he was elected. I cannot douht that this arrangement wa immoral and against public policy. It was virtually the pnurhase of the votes of those members of the legislature whom Carney could control. But aun I rsked. how could Carney transfer thevotes ofbis friends ? One way wouldi be to bribe themi by sharing with them the money obtained. Another and more probable mode would be to place his withdrawal in Sel a way before his supporters as to satisfy them that. by casting their votes for CAwDAELL. they would advance either tire public interest or some interest local to the people of Kansas. or Mr. Carneys private interest in the way of plitie.i advaneonent. Ire all the while carefully concealing from his friends the real mercenary riotive which vins operating upon him. That political leaders like Governor Carney do possess and wield upon occasion this power over MARCn 17. the votes of their adherents all experience proves. Illustrations might be found in every nominating convention. That Carney possessed. or was thought to possess. such power. is proved by the very fact that Mr. CaDWELL was willing to pay such a price. It was this power he bargained for and obtained. It was the very essence of the agreement that the money paid. and agreed to be paid. could aud would bring that support in the shape of votes which he thought necessary and could not otherwise obtain. Now. sitting as a judge in this case. can I. should I. shut my eyes to this corrupt means employed by Mr. CArDwraL to secure his election? Called upon to pronounce whether that election was valid. can I say that such means were honest and proper and not calculated to interfere with that freedom of election which is the very soul of our political system Pausing. then. right here. and not entering upon controversial ground. and giving to Mr. CAIDWELL tise benefit of all the doubts he has raised as to other testimony. I feel coUstrained to say that in my judgment this transaction invalidates his election. Fraud corrupts a contract and nakes it void. Why should it not taint an election I No verdict could stand a moment in a court of justice brought about by such influence as is proved hero. It only remains. Mr. President. that I should answer the objections taken to this view of the ease. It is said that Senators represent the State. the bodypolitic. being chosen by the lawmaking authority. and that we can no more inqu ire into the motives of the eightyseven members who voted for Mr. CALDwELL than we could into the motives of men who voted for an obnoxious law. that in either ease they are the acts of the State. performed by the instrument designated by the constitution for that purpose. To this objection there are. it seems to me. several answers. The first is. that the Constitution of the United States has delegated to the Senate the very power in question. in declaring that it shall be the judge of the elections of its members. Yon do not doubt. sir. nobody doubts. that the Senate might wholly disregard the act of Kansas. or New York. or any other State. performed in its highest sovereign capacity. if she sent a man hero for one of her Senators who was an alien. or less than thirty years of age. or not an inhabitant of the State. Clearly he could not be admitted. and the sovereign act of the State. of which we hear so much in this debate. would be unhesitatingly set aside. with the approbation of all. Why? Because the Constitution of the United States defines what sort of a man the State may send here. and the Senate is made the judge whether he possesses the required qualifications. The Constitution has just as clearly made the Senate the judge of the election. and I think a fair interpretation of the clause in question allows the Senate tinstitute the very inquisition which has been held in this case. with a view of ascertaining whether a valid. a real. or a simulated electionwas held. Now. sir. when the people of the several States consented to place that power in the Senate of the United States. they. to that extent. discrowned the States of sovereignty. They did not intend to create embassadors of Senators. but madce the Senate a tribunal to pass upon a right to a seat hero of any one claiming to represent a State. Time Constitution declares that the States may choose the Senoators. but it leaves it to the Senate to determine whether they shall be received. The next answer is that in refusing to receive Mr. CALDWELL. or unseating for the cause alleged. we do not prosimiably do violence to the will of the people of the State. The theory it that that will was not represented in his election. The body of the people is honest. and they ould never sanction bribery as a means of reaching office. especially of the exalted character of this. But their hands are tied. They could punish by fine and imprisonment briber and bribed. provided they have any state to adapted to this form of bribery. which I believe they have not. But it is beyond the power of the people of Kansas. acting through their legislature or otherwise. to cancel or annul Mr. CAnwELLS election. though they should desire it ever so much. I believe it is conceded by all that whilo the legislature of a State may elect a Senator it may not reconsider or repeal that act. No other tribunal under heaven may pass upon the validity of those proceedings in the Kansas legislature under which Mr. CALUWELT. claims the right to be a Senator here. unless the Senate of the United States may do it. and it is said the Senate may not. Then his riht must remain unquestioned. the seal of the State being held up bolero us as a bar to all inquiry. But to those gentlemen who ire so sensitive upon the sibjet of State rights. let me say that this very investigation was set on foot by the people of Kansas. nay. by that very instrumentality which sent Mr. CALDiwiL hero. For what purpose was an investigation hold by the legislature of Kansas. and the evidence scut here to be laid before the Seo e. unless this very action we are taking now was conteplated and desired? The office of Senator never dies. Though Mr. CArDwr.L be turned out. tlca Constitietion provides against any ihilure of representation. the governor may appoint as well aso the legislature may cheese . but were this not so. Kaissas would siot complain of our action. since the Constitution has referred it to this tribnal who shall be accepted as Senators. An election is not like a law which yen may not go behind. for another reason. A law may be repealed by the body which passed it. which is sure to be done if it do not reflect the geceral willi but the body which elects may not recall the act. I have already shown that no other tribunal. except the Senate. can set aside this election. Besides. there are reasons of public policy prohibiting an inquiry into the corrupt means brought to bear in the passage of a law. or the purpose of setting the law aside. which do not apply to elections. Now. since a bad law may be repealed at any time. pitiable indeed would be the condition of the people if no power existed anywhere to repeal a bad election ! There is one more arguient used in this connection which I want to notice. It is said that in unseating Mr. CALDWELL We are defrauding the people of Kansas of their choice for the corrupt action of a few members whose votes exercised no control over the result. in other words. that. deducting all suspected votes. he still had a majority of virtuous ones. I do not stop to inquire whether this is true or false. for that does not touch the real question. in my estimation. I apply to this election tim same principle I would apply to a contract. that the frand proved taints the whole transaction. You caunot eliminate the diseased part. and say this part is sound. that unsound. If fraud enter into the contract or election. the whole thing is affected by it. and niust fail. And right here I want to distinguish between that done by others and that done by Mr. CALDWLL. Though half the members of the legislature were bribed to vote for him. if the bribery was committed by others. without his knowledge or consent. I would not hold him responsible tar it. He would not he criminal in any sense if knowledge of the corrapt appliances were not brought home to him until after the election. It would be a sufficient answer for him that the result was not brought about by him or by his authorization. To render his election void. it should be shown that he was a party to the bribery or other corrupt practice employed. Answering for niyelf. then. and nobody else. I shall vote for this resolution. because Mr. CALDWELL Ias a party to the Carney arrangement. and the scope and purposo of it was. by the use of mosey. to procure his election. Whether a single vote was obtained in consequeuce of this agreement I do not know. nor do I think it material toinunire. It was an improper means. I think. to be employed. and he should not enjoy the fruit of what it was intended to accomplish. Mr. President. I feel. we all feel. the grave responsibility of this procedure. It will pass into history. and whichever way the question is decided it will be looked to as a precedent. It is. therefore. most important that our decision rest upon sound principles which cannot be successfully attacked. I painfully feel this responsibility for another reason. The tionor of Mr. CLDWELL is concerned. a thiiig of infinite value to him. and. therefore. challenging our profonndest sympathy. but his individual honor is small in comparison with the honor of this body. the highest depository of legislative and executive trusts in the nation. which we are charged by our oaths of office to guard and preserve. A seat here is justly regarded worthy the highest ambition. This chamber in times past has been filled wvith some of the %blest cd purest men of the country. whose wisdom. learninggonius. and virtues inspired confidenee in legislation. and made this body the object of confidence. respect. and roverouco. What. Mr. President. will become of these sentiments. so freely accorded in the past. when seats shall be obtained here. not as the recognition of these great qualities. not as the reward of distinguished services in other fields of duty. not because of experience in public affairs and of ability to serve the nation in this. its highest legislative forum. bat as the result of successful bargain and intrigue Sir. I would preserve the ancient glories of this chamber. I would have the country mintain its confidecein its purity. which assuredly will be shaken if we allow our sympathies to overrule our convictions of duty. Therefore it is that. because I think the means employed by Mr. CALwl)rWL to reach the Senate were immoral and corrupt. impairing the freedom of elections. and. in every light in which they may be viewed. against public policy. because I fol that his presence here. after all these developments in the testimony. would lessen the respect and weaken the confidenceoftle people in this body. I feel constrained to vote for the resolution.

S

Mr. PRATT

Unknown

PRATT

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

I moyc that the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive business.

S

Mr. CONKLING

Unknown

CONKLING

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

Mr. President. nothing but the gravity and impertane of the proposition involved in the report and resolution of tme Committee on Privileges and Elections in the ease of Air. Caaowui± could overcome the reluctance which I feel in taking part at this time in the debate. This feeling (if reluctance arises chiefly from the sense of physical fatigue enenilered by the labor. the ureting labor. of the last throe weeks oT the session of Congress just closed. leaving us all quite worn out in body and mind. and therefore disinclined to consider a subject which may well call for our highest powers and freshest condition of miid and hody. For the rore I have reflected upon the logical results of admitting the power in the Senate. by a majority vete. to oust Senators from their seats by doaltrinir their cats vacant. the more plain does it become to me that a greart lnmge would ha wrought. al a safeguard iutended sedulously to ao iaointained in the Constitution of our Government evaded or overthrown. I refer to the right of the States to have and maintain at all times their full ani eu a:il representation as indepondent sovereignties in this chamber of the national councils. so that their influence may be felt on every measure. This right of representation to the States appears upon the face of the Constitution with peculiar emphasis. and is secured to each State beyond even the power of ameudmont by nil the other States combined. unless the consent of the State itself le given thereto. 6ubject to the qualifications required by the Constitution. of age. of citizenship. ad inhabitancy. the right of each State to chose. and. whie chosen.to keep ill the Senate. two Senators. cannot be invaded. or in any degree or in any way. directly or indirectly. iaterfered with. excopting in the exoreist of the power reserved by the Constitution to oxpol any Scnator with the concurrence of twothirds of the body. In this way. and by these means only. can a State in this Union be deprived of her full and equal representation in the Senate. and no such pretext as that suggested by the Senator from Vermont. [Mr. lhinriar.] who spoke a ifelw daysago. that "thoSenato was theguardian of the States." can be permitted to deprive the States of a right end power which is their own. The Senate is in no sense the guardnun of chie rights of the States to representation. The States compos the Senate. they create the Senate. and their rights are secured by the Constitution to them. and do not rest in the discretion of the Senate in any degree. I will now use the language of the Supreme Court of the United States. delivered at the December term. 1870. which received the approvad of every member of the court. save only Mr. Justice Bradley. who disenterd. and I have not had the opportunity of examining the extent of his dissent. The opinion of the court was delivered by that venerable and abl judge. Mr. Justice Nelson. who has since retired fron serbico with the respect and gratitude of his fellowcitizens. I clie it for the purpose of definiug the relations of the States to the 1odcral Goverinment. and from that deducing the rights of the States iu respect of their choosing their representatives in this body. Much. Mr. President. of the just argument in tids case. much that must control our decision in this case. will be drawn from consideratiots of the nature of our Government. in the absence of those precise delinitions which would otherwise save much of the queslions which we are compelled to solve by analogy. by reason. by broad views of fi le ontire Constitution. and the relation of the Statcs to the GenerA Goverument. The General Government and the Statessay th courtaIilough both axist within the same territorial limits. are Silparato and distinrt soirt ignies. acting separately and independently of each other. within their reosjctivo spheras. The former. in its appropriate sphone. is suprene. hot the Stats within the limits of their powers not granted. or. in the lalignage of the tenth nieadtct. "reserved." are as indpendount of the General Government as Mitt. Govesnmnnt within its sphere is iolepenlent of the Stars. ilie relations existing between the two governments are well stated by the present Chief J ustice iChase) in the ease of Lane County vs. Oregon. (reported in 7th W.lliae.) " lib tite States and the United States." he observed. "existed be. ore the OConetiiition. Ti people threaglo that instrument established a more perlet union by ubstitoting .o notional government. acting with ample powers directly upon the ocitizens. itstead of rite confederate governmeit. which acted. with pow11rn grennfy restricted. only upon the States. Bat. in ninny of the articles of ito Cotioitution. rho necessary existence of the States. and. within their proper apheres. che indpeaident atuthority of the States. are distinctly neogniced. To theirs nearly the whole chargI of interior regulation is c. itited or Icehi to thon. and to tie people. all powers. not expressly delegated to the national Government. arc reserved." Upon looking into the Constitution it will be found that but few of t lie articles in that intumont could be carried into practical effect without the existence of the States. Two of the great departments of the Government. the exeentivo and legislative. depend upot the exercise of the powers or uton the people of the States. The Constitution gimrirtes to rite States a republican form of government. and pro. tota eaoch agaiset invaioion or dooiteotio violonce. Such being the separate and - itdepcndnit condition of che States in our complex system. as recognized by tie Conmtitutiou. and i1re existence of which is so indiopensabl. that. without them. the General Goverinmit itself would disappear from rhe family of nations.-i Collector vs. Day. at Wallaces Reports. pp. 124. i25. Again. in referring to the same relations. the court say : Without this powerThat is. the power of selfcontrol over all such subjects as were then under consideration. such as taxationand tle exercise of it. we risk nothing in saying that no one of the States under the forni of governlntit guaranteed by the Constitation could long preserve its existenco. A despotic government might. Now. Mr. President. considering the relation of the States to the icnral Government under what hae been well called "this complex systemi of ours." and iil view of the light of that recent and almost tnanimous decision of the Supreme Court. let us examine the power now sought to be exercised by the Senate of the United States in regard to the choice of Senators by the States. Under no pretext. however plausible. for no object. however laudable. ought the principles which lie at the foundation of cur system of government to be overlooked. and there never was in the history of ortr Government a more dangerous proposition enunciated than that which is contained ilt the resolution of the committee now before the Senate. That resolution is in these words: feOerl. Thit A LmXANIri CALDWtT. vas not daly and legally elected to a seat in the Senate of the United States by fite legislature of the State of Kansas. This resoLtaiOa has received the honest. unhesitating. but I think mistaken support of the Senators from Vermont and Missouri. Indeed I may say that the crowning danger of oar tite in American politics is the belief and practice in the party nowy dominant of doing any act and supporting any measure which seems to be at the moment virtuous. useful. and beneficent. withoat reference to the fact that the power to perform it is comprised within the just bounds of the ehar er of limited powers delegated to the Federal Goveranmtit. Thus we have sei. in the name and for the sake of public welare. an assumption by the Federal Government of control over subjects never committed to their charge. instances of which are to be found in the late proposition for the institution atdltudowincut aid eouttrol of colleges for public education in the several States. and now the purgation of S.ato lagislatires of riiry and corrupltion by trials of the tombors and their candidates before the Senate of the United States. The ruie for an Ameriean legislator is plain and as simple ats tre all great truths. and it is tliat his aspirations aud action for pulic welfare must be subordinated at all tiies rigidly to ti liiitations imposed by the written charter which he is sworn to support. He is not justified in straining coustruections to accoinplish his desires. however holest. unselfish. aid beneficent usay be his object. And it is to a disregard of this principle of action in legislation that I attribute almost entirely the difficulties which surround es now. have covered our country with the pall of sorrow. placed a huge debt upon our poople for many generatlions to come. and threaten its the future the very existence of onr form of government. Becauso a thing is admittedly good in itself. that is no reason why we as Federal legislators should enact it into law. unless the subject and niodo of action have been delegated to our control. nor because a thing is evil. hateful. and abominable in itself. that we should enct umeasures for its suppression. unless the power to do so is clearly within the scope of our agency. Let it not be forgotten that the powers delegated to the Federal Government are comparatively few. and that the groat mass of governmental powers are expressly "reserved to the States or to the people thereof." to be called into exerciso by the exigencies of the times. under the healthful and proper demands of local selfgovernincut. the capacity for which is the true test of our people to maintain a republican form of governmcnt. We must rely upon that to remedy public abuses anid moral delinquencies. and ict our people and States learn. through the usual processes of suffcring aud sorrow. how to abate and punish evil in their midst. They will. in time. learn the truth so well stated by Montoesquieru in his Spirit of Laws: It does not requite much probity for a monarehileal or lospetieial government to maintaha or onpporb itself. The force of the laws in the one. the ari of the pinoo always uplifted in the other. regulate or keep in its place everything. But in a popuintr state some additional power ts required. which is virtue. And again : As virtio is necessary in a republic. and honor in a monarchy. fear is what is required in a sleopotiom. As for virtue. it is not at all aeccossary. cnd honor would be dangerous there. If such apothegmas should ever create an impression on the public mild. surely it is at this period of our history. when the results of congressional investigation disclose so melaucholy and discreditable a condition of political morals in many States of the Unio. Let us consider the duties and powers of this Senate in relation to its members. First. How are Senators chosen or elected. by iheni. to reprcst whom. and sOcat ? Article I. section 3. of the Constitution declares thatThe Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State. chosen by tire legislature thereof. for six years. and each Senator shall have one voto. It then proceeds to declare when they shall assemble. and that they shall be divided into three classes. and provides : And if vacancies happen by resignation. or otherwise. during the recess of the legislaturs of alry Stats. ths xoecutivo thereof may make temporary appointments util the next meeting of the legislature. which shall then fill sash vacanoies. The second provision. relating to Senators. is in section four. providiug for the time. place. and mauner of holding elections for Senators and Rlepresentatives. that they shall be 11 prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof. but the Congress may at any time. by law. make or alter such regulations. except as to the places of choosing Senators." The place is kept within the control of the State. for palpable reasons. to prevent an act of Congress causing the legislitnro to sit at any point beyond the limits of the State. or at inconvenient and inaccessible points. or at a point where they would be less under the control and protection of their own people. and that is an illustration of the reserve intended by the States over Congress. in respect of those three things conbioned in the section: time. and place. tod manner. the State to have in the first place choice of the time and manner. the Congress to have the supervising power of regulation . but. with regard to the place. Congress is to have no control whatever. that is reserved to the States exclusively. Then. in section 5. we find thatEach HouseThe Senate and House of Representativesshall be t " judgt of the elections. returns. and qualifications of its own members. and a najority .sf each shall constitute a quorum to do business. but a smaller htiumbeir may odjrurn from thay to day. and may tie authorized to compel the attedtru. of alett anotobers. in such taunor and under auch penalties as each House sany prvido. Again: !Each House shall be the judge of the qualifications. clections. and returns of its own members ." and. in the same section. "each House may punish its niceers for disorderly behavior. and. with the concurrence of twothirds. expel a momber. Iir I would note that it is in the same section. in the saiie fraine of lainguago. that the power to "judge of elections " and to expel by twothirds ii given. The power to expel by twothirds is an unqualified power. I do not like the term "absolute" in a government of limited powers. and I doubt whether any power may be termed "absolute" under our system. but it is an unqinalfied power. it rests in the discretion of the bedy : it is capable of abase. but nevertheless it is unqualilicdly delegated. It is mteant for the necessary selfprotection of the Senate. although it should temporarily deprive a State of its full and equal representation in the Sepate. It has been argued that sch a power was naturally inherent in any representative body. and the great name of Chief Justice Shaw has been cited. But the Constitution expressly confers it. anti the Senate may. in its discretion. justly exercise it. The wisdom of requiring a twothirds instead of a majority in our populna system of government. where party organizations and purty spirit form the basis of rule. is very demonstrable. A party consisting of twotltirds of the body is already so strong that it may not only pass any resolution requiring the usual majority. bat even overcome the veto of the Executive. or impeach that official. and expel at will amy obnoxious member. It needs noillegitimate accession of power. it is strong enough already. and. therefore. being beyond temptation. is not likely to be induced to commit injustice toward any member of the minority by expelling him under false pretext. or in the spirit of party persecution. The case is quite otherwise. and all the reasons directly re versible. when a bare majority are to be considered. Each House is to be the judge of its elections . and because of this application of the same language in delegating power to each. the proposition has been advanced during the debate that the powers of the House of Representatives. and its action. are the same. and must proceed. aud may justly proceed. by the same methods as the Senate. Sir. the Constitation must be construed as a whole. In considering the powers of the House and the Senate. the constituencies of each must be considered. the form of government. the relation of the States. as States. to the General Government must be considered. The House is the popular branch of representation. The Senate is placed by the Constitution as a check opon the popularpower represented it the Honsc. You cannot clange the uature of the Senate by an implication founded upon a delegation of power in the saine let guago to both Houses where naturally the operation of the power and their action snder that delegatioi must be different. The uounbers of the House of Representatives are chosen hy. and represent directly. the people of the States. the Senators in this body represent the independent sovereigaties of the States. Tie election of a tinhuer of the House is an exercise by the people of their right of sultiae ill their pilnary capacity. Thtercis no political organization interposed between the voter axel tie House of Representatives. there is uno triiunal otf investigation or deterninatios of fact. This is not so in the easo of an celction to the Senate. An election of a Senator is the Ilelitical act of the State. it is the act of an organized political commnity. sovereign and independent as to its choice.

S

Mr. BAYARD

Unknown

BAYARD

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

Will the Senator allow me to make a suggestion on that poit I

S

Air. MORTON

Unknown

MORTON

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

The point I desire to submit for the Senators consideration in that connection is. that this cannot invove a y qupisfion of the original or reserved rights of the States. or. to use a we6l which I do not approve. the "sovereign" rights of a State. becausc the Senate itself is the creation of the Constitution of tie Uniited States. The members of the legislature are made electors. not by virtmn of any original State right. but by the Constitution of the United States. rho right of a State to choose a Senator is a right conferred by the Constitution of the United States. Now. what is the impropriety. how is it not competent. for the same Constitntion that confers upon a State the right to choose a Senator. that makes the members of a State legislature the elceters of a Senator. to empower the Senate to judg of that election T All the rights the States have in the matter are derived from the Constitution of the United States. and the same instrument empowers the Senate tojedge of the exercise of that right. So there is no question of State sights. so tospeak. no question of original or reserved power at all involved. inasmach as the only right which the State ias is herived front the Constitution of the United States. as conferred by the people of all the States in couvontion assembled in 1787.

S

Mr. MORTON

Unknown

MORTON

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

Now. Mr. President. let us take the converse of tLc Senators proposition : all the powers that the Congress of the United States have over the States are to be found hero delegated. or they do not exist at all. The States were States before the United States Government was formed. and they were intended to remain such. When I speak of them as independent sovereignties. (a phrase that is so distasteful to the honorable Senator from Indiana. so that he objects to using it. or uses it only under protest.) let me say to hint that I am using the precise lagngage of the Sapreme Court of .tho United States in the latest case in which this question was consideredlangitage in which the Stases are termed " separate and distinct sovereignties." the General Government being one sovereignty. " the Stats being separate and distinct sovereignties. acting separately and independently of each other within their respecative spherts." The existence of the Senate. as I have already stated in a prior portion of lty roitrks. doper ds upon tho States. They composs the Senate. under the Constitution. and when the honorable Senator speaks of ti States deriving their power from the Coustitution. it is by regulation that prescribes wlt their representation here shall be. and proceeds to delegate to tlese representatives. when Organized as it Senate the powers necessary for the maintenance of the Government of the Union.

S

Mr. BAYARD

Unknown

BAYARD

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

Will the Senator permit me to ask him a question I

S

Mr. SCHURZ

Unknown

SCHURZ

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

Certainly.

S

ir. BAYARD

Unknown

BAYARD

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

I do not think that I agree with the Senator from Indiana on a great many questious concerning Stato rights. but is it not true. after tll. that the Senate of the United States is a creation of the Constitution of the Un ited States ? Would the Senate of the United States have existed without the Constitution of the United States ?

S

Mr. SCHURZ

Unknown

SCHURZ

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

No doubt the Senate of the United States is part of the frannework of the Coittitution.

S

Mr. BAYARD

Unknown

BAYARD

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

Tie Sunate. then. being a creation of the Constitutionl-

S

Mr. SChURZ

Unknown

SCHURZ

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

Cortainly. as a means by which the States were to be represented here.

S

Mr. BAYARD

Unknown

BAYARD

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

Precisely . the Senate being a creation of the Constitution of the United States. not established lbr the purpose ofgiving she States. oe sovereignty. diplomatic representatives near another sovereignty. but for the purpose of forming a distiuct branch of the legislabive deparmnent of the Government. is not. in so far. a member who becomes part of that body also a creation of the Constitution of the United States in his political existence?

S

Mr. SCHURZ

Unknown

SCHURZ

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

There is no question with regard to the Senate being part of the Federal Government. and that it was intended as the body through sthich the Statesshould exercise control ts sovereignties in the legislation fitr the Union. That was tho intent. The States that were to constitute the Union created this instrnment. this charter of powers. "to establish a more perfect Union." and to substitute a uational Governnmot instead of the Confederation which had existed before. Bnt these delinitiens have been given. I think. accurately by Ntls Supreme Court.. for the purposes of this argumntt that I am attempting to ntil e. a lid perhaps betbre I get through the Senator from Indiana will be more folly answered. It was rather anticipa ing mypoint.. that the Senate. sittitg as judges of the elctitn. are judges of thres things. and I like that word "judge." It recalls to iis the temper in which we shoul ttpuroaeh fltt cnonsideration of these subjects. the impersonal. nopartisnt. judicial temper with -which all these grave saljcts should he disctisued. I feel that I am delivering jidgment in a case. my only regret being that the argument could not have bee more fllthat liy own time and capacity for exandlation should not have been enlarged. But. sir. we should remember that we sit as judges on the act of at legislature. on the political act of an indelcndent sovereignty. We are not sitting in jtdgieut opon the act of the canididate. There is where I think my respected collealeo who addressed the Senate is umornitg failed to discriniinate. We are nob judging of the act of the candidate. Mr. CALDWELL. we arejndging of the ace of the pthitical body that sent. tit here. It is not his act. but it is the act of the political body and its competency to perform it. We judge of three things: of the elections. of the returns. of the qualifications of members of this body. What qualifications ? Of citizenship. of proper age. of inhabitancy. Those are all unquestioned in the present case. Those qualitications mity you considertie qnalificatins of the electing body or the qualilicationsof the calldidate elected % Certainly the qualifications of the eandidate alone. the qualifications of the electing body mut be jedged by other authority than yours. Tit Cotstitution gives this body to poer to determine tle qunliticatiins of the elocting body. You are judges of the qualfications of the candidate. and what those arc the Constitution has prescribed. ausd you may ntither add to nor subtract from one jot or tittle of that which is there laid down. Tie returns shall state the qualifications. and they shall be in due form. they shall be in accordance with the law of Congress prescribing the time and the manner. and of the State prescribing the place where these elections shall be held. There is less difficnlty opon these two grounds of qualifications and reterns. but of elections we sit as lodges. Judges of what? Whether the legisl.ntare has chosen. not wy the legislatme chose. but thether they chose. Did the to ulatibre cheoose? Was the body that assumed to choose. the legislature of tile State? Were the legislature present at thetime of choic Were they prevented from meeting by force or other means? Was it the legislaturo To answer these questions of fact and of law you must consult the constitution and the laws of that State to kfiow whether it was the legislature. If there be questions of doubt as to the votes cast. as to the absence of its members. you must cotsult their journals and their records. Was the election in accordance with law? Congress has the right to regulate as to time and manner. The law of 1866. passed by Congress. is the guide of the Senateia that respect. Was that law fulfilled ? All these requirements the Senate has a right to insist shall be proven to it affirnatively iii order that it may declare that the elaction has been held in acourdeico therewith. The time rnst be in accordance with laiv . tie mnanner inust be in accordancie with law. Whst we mean bty "tinto" is capable of immediate aprtlonsion. what we mean by manner" is simply the inthod. whether by ballot. or whether. as prescribed by our statute. viva see. That wiI appear by the journals ofi the legislature into whose action you are inquiring. But. sir. can you inquire into the motives of the legislature as to wily they cast their ballots. or why by their voice they declared their wish. which has been recorded upon their jourials ? Can the Senate undertake to try or punish a mneiber of a legislature for bribery or any other crime? Can yon sit here upon the qualificationsof a momher of the legislature? No. sir. To know whether le was or not. the body of which he is a member is the sole judge. and the Senate of the United States can no more infringe the right of the legislature of a State to judge of the qualification of thec membership to that legislature than can the legislature of a State presume to sit in judgment upon the qualification ofa member of this body. They are. to use the language of the court. independent and sovereign in regard to those things which are committel to the charge of each. If it is presumed to say that the Senate of the United States can assunie the jurisdiction to try a member of a legislature for the crime of bribery or any other offense. whence is that power derived? Where is the letter of the Constitution. where is the intendment that by any honest construction can be hold to warrant such a power? Remanber. sir. you are trying the vlidity of the political act of a sovereign and independent State. especially independent of you in the exercise of her choice of a Senator. The Senators shall be " chosen" by the legislature. That legislature is elected by the people of the State in accordance with their constitution and laws. and the foot is simply. has it chosen. and your power is to ascertain that. and beyond it you cannot go. How can you sit here and impeach the validity ofa political act of an independent political community of competent jurisdiction 1 Can you invalidate. or is there a power on earth that can invalidate. the decree or judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States. although it should be proved that the judgment was procured by the bribery and eprruption of oine or more of its members ? No. sir. file judgment would stand. it would be valid. it could be plealed in law. and nothing but revolution could prevent its having force. A mani procured a pardon fromi the Erxcutivo of the United States. oraof a State. for some heinous crime of which lie has been duly convicted. He presents that pardon . it may be proven the pardon was bought with money. a gross perversion of the powers of the Exeeutive. a gross broach of trast. corruption may have been the source of that act. but the pardon stands. and nothing but revolution can disregard it. Tlhese are two instances of political acts enanating from the duly authorized source in a political coinmunity which cannot be questioned. and which there is no power short of absolute revolution to overrule. Anaet of the legislature becomes a law. it stands as alaw. no matter how procured. anil repealed. Its repeal cannot remove the consequences of the original passage of the act. Such has been the soleim decision of our court of last resort in this country in the great Cherokee land case in the State of Georgia. and it is in consonance with the principles of law which I havo been endeavoring to state. But. sir. the States which shall have been thus ontraged by corruptio or wrong have within themselves the powers of selfvindication and we hero in the Senate of the United States are iot left witlion the right and power of plenary selfprotection. becasei when the wrong has been proved to occur at the instance or by tle complicity ofa man who proposes to sit as a member of this body. our power of selfprotection is ample to expelling him from his seat by a twothirds voto. I have said we to not sit here as a court of appeal from the action of the legislature of Kansas. We are not iu aiy sense of the word the guardian of the State of Kansas. We are the judges of tme election of a Senator as to its regularity. as to its form. as to its coumplianice with law. but we are not the judges of the wisdom of her choice. nor are we the judges of the motives of the body of legislators who sent their representative to this place. The right and the duty of selfgovernment are in the State. If you remove them. you tAe from the people the spur that will teach them. if they are capable of being taught. the necessity of exorcising their power of selfgovernieent for their own protection. It say well be that. by sufforiimg. anl snffering alono. will men be taught. for such is hiiuinal history. It is only by bitter experience that we can learn how to protect ourselves. Now. Mr. President. this doctrine of the relation of the States to the General Government mnd of ti power of the Senate of the United States as a branch of the General Governient to sit ini inquisition apon the action of tie legislature ofa State has been inquired into in cabin and temperate times by men of learning aind epericnce. My inclinations mightlead me to follow the easy path. indicated eloquently and ably in this debate. of punishing a wren g wherever I see itof adding my contribution toward the purity of the elective system of the country . and I have felt an actual distress in being compelled to withhold iiy vote from a proposition which might tend to purify our Government. but which I felt as a delegate with limi ted powers I was not justified in supporting. I am glad to say that no such case as this has occurred before. God grant that noun such other niay occur again. I trust that the result of this debate and the action of the Seeto will be such as to teach men that by suhi corrupt. ucnms office cannot be retained. even though for.a tine it imay be unlawfully reached. In 1834. not upon the question of the bribery and eorrqption of a legislature. but under the question of a conflict of rival governmonte in the State of Rhode Island. two parties presented theimselves fur admission to the Senate. Mr. Petter and Mir. Robbins. both citizens of the State of Rhode Island. duly qua.iaed as to citizenship. age. and residence.

S

Mr. BAYARD

Unknown

BAYARD

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

That was in 1833.

S

Mr. CONKLING

Unknown

CONKLING

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

Well. it was in 1834 that the report was made. the first session of the Tweutythird Congress. The question as to the rights of these two parties was referred to a committee composed of Mr. PoindexterI Mr. Rives. Mr. Freliughuysen. Mr. Wright. and Mr. Sprage. I will read a portion of the report of the committee. After reciting the constitutional power given to the Senate to lie the judge of the elections. returns. and qualifications of its own nmeumbeas. it proceeds . Thei members of the Senate ara to be chosen by the legislatures of each State. And the times. pla cs. and manner of holing eleetions for Senators and Repre senatices sh be prescribed is each State by the legislature lroft. but the Cengress may at any time. bylaw. make or alter such regulations. except as to i he pIrse at e itsiug Sna btors. Congress having passed no law on the subject. we mast leook into the statntes of the several States fcr those regulations. and conform our action to them. Since that time Congress has by law proscribed regulations. which this election has been held to conform to. The Senators from cacti State are eqoal in number. and cannot te increased or diminished. even by an amendment of t is Consitutilon. without tie consent of the States respectively. They are chosen by the Stetes as political soercignties. without regard to their representative population. and form the Iederal branch of th- oational legisliturc. Tue same body of men. which possesses the powers of legislation iii caci State. is alone competent to eppoint Senators to Congress for the term prescribed io the Constitution. In the perforsance of this duty. ihe State acts in its hiibest sovereign capacity. anl te causes which would ieiduer the election of a Senator void iist hc seclias itd destroy the validilty of ai laws eneeit ly the body by which the Somotor wee. chosen. Other ceauses inilght exist to reinler the election ioidable. and thmsear oi nmerated if] the Constitution. beyond wich the Seae raenot interpose is antlorityto distrbhorcoa trol the sovreign ewrers of the State. vested i. their log.Iltue by the Constiiftion of the Unitel States. Wemiyhtnqoiss. wilh csn electedl hirtyyears ofae at the timee of his elction ? Indue eInlitaecyearsaetcitazen isl fiUiieh Slates? Was he. at the tin of his election. a Sonator of te State for whic li sha ll ass l.uo ciosen? Was the election hel aethe time sut place diirel by ii lows oft hi. State These are facts capable of clea denustration by proofs. anul in the abtulc. of the requisite iualillaions in eiter ofthe specifieiicases. or ifthe existiig laws if the State rogulating the time And place for holing the election were aiolae . the Senate. acting under the power to judge of "tse elections. returns. and qtialifiections of its own mombers. might aijudge th conlissiin o the ist eson elctd void. although in tll other respects it was legal and coosti.al . hunt whore ihe sovereign will of the Slate is iado blown through its lczislatnrc. and tonsiionjeted by its proper official functionaries i dee ftrm. it wacl te a dangerous ..xcrtis of jpower to look betit the commission for defeats in the coionent pro I s of the legislatsre. or into ths peculi.r organization of tie boly. for reasons tO jusily the Senate in doclaringita ants absolutely uil cnd void Sil apower. i" cmuriid to its legitimate exent. itulij eet tie entire scopoot" Slate legislatin ito ie stivrated by our decision. and even the right of giltirige of isdividual nlmhtr of the lngislaturc. whose elections were contested. oight be set acute. It iwold alio lead to investiga ion$ into i e uotiven of membars- in casting their votes. fiir I ho ptrpose of establishing a charge of bribery or corruption in particulsar case. These matters. your cenmitteo think. properly belongti the srilinas of the Stite. and cannot enstitnte the basis en which th Senate could. wilboit. an infringement of State sovereignty. claim te iirbt to declare thc election of . Seiator veiud. uhis uossessu the roeisite qualitisations. and was chosen according to tao forms of law sain the uostz tet mu. These general views iir offere to show that. contested elections in fhie popular breench 1" oiugrese. Wrers th.. people exert. in thoir priuaryoapaity. ti ia fint .f altrege under srious liitations coi res"is i. a in its eh..itc ..f Jieureerniti s Lenin certain prescibted distriers. ipso a .lutiih iwider ilcld cf inuioiry ald ie.etigoiienu thon a liks soctoot fsr a scat il the Seinate. wchuli is e bode wvholly. fe.+..s. nie isl its cliariictcr cudt~ orgaiiatioii. ciii wsc nl seiuirr hold their iucuseituoeito frIim ant represen the Stales cc political sevcreigstuos.-Gsoetti ktvaoe ii lenrsse. 7a1 c I4. pp. t)e. set. Subsequently Mr. Silas Wright. of New York. whose eminently judicial mind. whose learning and ability. and whose great purity of character secured for him the conlidonce of men of all parties. in commenting upon the reasoning of that report. with most of which lie agreed. but frora part of which he disseinted. spok in respect of this very matter of bribery and corruptiona of enmbers of a leg slatnic being competently inquired into by committees of the Senate of the United States. He said: So. also. in tl cae supposed by the majority of the committee. of alleged brib. cry aid correptioi. "h undursignoid has always supposed tt a metlir of a legislative Issly who should accept a bribe was punishals for rise cri.no. tut he has never undarstood. ior does be now soders.tai. that the voe of the mcmber g vcl ..ndter the corrupt influeno vitioted the proceding voted upo. or rendredl either void or voilablo. by legal adjudication. such proceeding. The icoter h:-ibed is still constitntionally and loyally a iiembr of the body iotwitistanding his corruption. And retains ell his rilhts aid alt ti losers mn a Iember. until oiviction for the crime ousts hil frot his seaL There was. one other case where the power of the Senate Was inquired iuto. and a construction given to their power of iivestigation into the motives and conduct of legislators in choosing Senators.

S

Mr. BAYARD

Unknown

BAYARD

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

Will the Senator please state that. in that ease of Robbins ns. Potter. there was no question of bribery or of personal nuisumiudnet involved at all?

S

Mr. MORTON

Unknown

MORTON

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

I stated that expressly. that I was glad for the character of the country that no such question was raised. It was. however. a case in which. not. by way of ebter dica. but in deciding the principles upon which they could ant. we had an expression formal. positive. and exhausti ve. on the part of this committee. of the powers of the Senate in respect to a ease jinst like the present. where bribery and corruption had iecn alleged er proved as cotering into the choice by a legislature of a nem er of thia body. In 1857 there was the case of Mr. Catilmiox. of Fennsylvania. Allegations were there made that members of the legislature. in vot-

S

Mr. BAYARD

Unknown

BAYARD

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

had a majority of twentyfive votes in the joint assembly. The number of votes boight. and which can be specified by testimony. so far as I have exauired. is less than twelve. Any beyond that number were presurned to ave been bought. The numher of votes specifically proved to have been paid for would not have ehauged the reonlt of the election. If thn rotives of the legislature are to be inquired into. it might become necessary to ascertain the number of vtes lost to CaTn)wLr.L hy the pnrehase of his rivals as well as those gained by him. This illustrates the impracticability. if not the impossibility. of entering upon sock an investigatios us it is supposed by the committee the Senate have the power to institute. Mr. Presidot. the British Parliament may have power to create these disrqalifications. atd say that no man ehall sit if. at his election. withr or without his knowledge or complicity. a single voter was bribed. but that Parliaitent eanexpcl. not by twothirds but by a vote of oethird. orby less than onethird. if they see lit soto provide bylaw. The House of Conrions csosistsof sixhundred and fiflyeightrmerubers. forty members of that house constitute a quorum. Why. sir. in the last summer I cheanced to visit tire British Houses of Parliamet. and found it was impossible to Beat onehalf the members of the House of Commons in the chamber appropriated for their use. I was tempted to ask the reason why the nw Hoinses of Parliament. constructed at great exlense. were so designedly atle for the exclusion of onehalf the members. The answer was. that if the building were largo enough to contain them. it wotld ie impossible to hear sufficiently well for the transaction of business- that more than onehalf the members did not attend. and wlru important divisions did arise. riterbers could go out as others carie in for the purpose of casting their votes. The British Parliament is unpaid. Probably for that reason the sace space and accorrrodation aro tot necessary. for members do not atteni. and spend half their time. or more than half their time. absent from its sessions. Perhaps many of them are not needed. but it is uselees. as you will see. for the reasors which I have stated. to attempt to adjust the precedents of such a body. so constituted. so acting. with a body like our own. in which the presence of all the members from the States is sedulously sought to tne maiutained far the protection of the States. There is in the British empire no stch body as an independent state. there is no such body as the representatives of states as independent comrnimuities. and the haws that may apply. therefore. to one system of government. or the precedents which may be wise and applicable to one system. cannot be applied to a system like our own. The qualilications of electors are ns open to inquiry by the British Parliauerit as the qualifications of candidates. I submit that in the case of a Senator the electoral body that sends him hero is not open to question. atd I do not think the Senate anywhere has gone far euough yet to declare it. ]once it is that as the British Parliament has control over the qualifications of electors as well as over those of candidates. they can disqualify for bribery. The whole matter is iu their hands. They are wititut the traimels which our Constitution imposes upot us. and the theory of their government would make such trammels hrconsistnt with its very nature. As I said befiore. they can impose what qualifications thcy llease. and disable a man from membership. but we have no power either in the House or in the Senate to add to. or alter in any Way. thu rjnalifications required by the Constitutien. And. sir. there is another reason why we have no jurisdiction to try members of a legislature for bribery. We have no imaginable delegation of power to enable us to take cogrizance of such t n offense. All we cat do is to try the cardidato for his own acts. and his acts may be committed in connection witih his election. but we have no right to try the legislature under pretense of trying him. and we do try the legislature when we undertake to test their acts irrespeetive of him. tHis acts committed in connection with his presOnce in this body are within our jurisdiction plainly. but the acts of the legislature preliminary and aceompanyirg his presence in this body are tot capable of being tried by this Senate. If there was no other reason. the very unfitness of this body to adjudicate upon such questions of fact and law would of itself be an answer. Under what forms would yon proceed? How would you sunnon the parties charged? What riles of evideuce would you adopt? We have none If the certainties df pleading. and all thess regulations of testimony which the experience of centuries has shown to those who speak the Eiilish language to be essential to justice. are wantiughere. Who is to (ocide the vexed questions? Where tre the men learned in the law sitting as au independent judicial authority in this chamber ? Sir. we have none of the machinery for the proper ascertainmunct of law and fact. in connection. with crones of that character. We have a right. however. when we consider the act of the candidate. the act of one of our own members. to judge of that. and we try him. not upon a technioal criminal charge. not by technical rules. but we try him sitting as a Senate. considering our vown honor and safety. and applying to his case the broadest and le ast technical rules of equity coil juslice fior the oscrtatllnent of his guilt or innocence of the charges laid at his door. Mr. President. two propositions are before asthe one contained in the report of the committee to declare this seat vacant and to ost the sitting mnber by a majority vot. and the other to expel him by a vote which will require the concurrence of twothirds. these are the two courses open for us. The one is. to say the least. uncertain. doubtful. and riot only of doubtful expediency iut of still snore doubtful right. rhother is clearly and unqualifiedly within our just power. and which in every respect will viudicate the character. the di g ity." and the Irity of this Senate. W hy should we embark. for the first time in the history of our country. in disregard of the only precedents which can be produced on this subject. against the doctrine of great and wise men on this subject. upon this dangerous path of forced construction. for the purcose of accomplishing a desired end. when. on the other hand. we have a clear. unquestioned power. which may be exercised. ad can be controlled only by our official and personal conscience? Sir. I ceimot. in such a ease as this. doubt my duty. I cannot. in such ac case as this. consent to exercise a doubtfulpower. whe one clear and unquestioned is open to my vote on the other side. When the act to be aecomplished is directly to be accomplished. I am not to reach by indirection a result which I can justly reach by a direct vote. uiler clear powers intrusted to ine. The power of expulsion is clear. I do net use the terus "absolute power." but I say it is an unqualified power in each branch of the Congress of the United States by a lnjorityvote to punish a mnensber for disorderly behavior. and toexpel him only with the concurrence of twothirds. New. sii. has the sitting member. Mr. CALnWrLL. 80 offended against decency. good government. and sonud mtals as to b unworthy n seat in this body ? It is not necessary for toe in this case to decide. and therefore I refrain from considering the question whether the Senate san regard the impropriety and criminality of an act as a ground for expulsion when it wascoainittedhbeforethe term of office of the individual charged. The alleged acts of bribery nid corruption of the legislatureof Kansas. if coimiittei as fiund by the comnimitte. were comitted ill direct connection with the preseice of the sitting member in this body. The transaction of his election had several stages. The last stage was his ipresence in this chamber. It was an entire net. a contiiuing act. cnuninating in his presence here. If bribes were paid in Topeka. they were part and parcel of the membership of this body. part of what lawyers term the roel gcstm of the ease. The disclosures in the testimony of the case before us are iideed shocking. It would seem that the legislature of Kansas had embarked upon a system of politics froe which truth. and honesty. and lionor all alike were banished. It has been to me a wonder in reading this testimony that society there had sufficient coherence to remain even a government in form. when the essentials of a govern"enet. that confidence between man acd man which inspires the citizen with either respect or fear for his government. of confidence ii anything that took the shape of a politicalact. were so entirely wanting. rnd that men had not returned to the laws of nature and to the rule of simple selfprotecting force. Certain it is that every olemnt which cmakes republican governmnct possible of exisreice scems ti have gone out from that community. if the history of their legislative action. in connection with this senatorial election. is to be taken as trne. Now. sir. what sare sad Mr. CaLoWELLin all this ? So far as wehave seen him. I believe I speak but the sou tinsent of every man in this chaiber when I say that his disposition seems one of amiability and gentleess iiid general kindness . certainly nothing in my intercaorse with hini but has been entirely of that nature. What has been his part in these prneceedings which resislted in his electioni? fa he been a willing or aln unwilling actor in these frauds ? Has he been an ignorait or innocent. or has he been a guilty participant in these results ? It has been alleged by those who discussed this testimony at some length. especially by thehonorable Senator from Illinois. that there is such a want of good character in the witnesses as to deprive them of all right to lie believed. and we are asked to dismiss this case. to refuse to find either one way or the other. beca nse the witnesses on both sides are so mutually destroyed by each others testinuum.y as to leve nthing upon which the mind call rest with moral cmrlai:t.y or with airy conviction. But. sir. there are broad aid philosophic rules relating to human testiimony which must control us. becausa a decision must he had. otherwise criminals would go nnwhipped of justice. and the judge must he condemned when lie who is guilty is absolved. . There was a report drawn by Edmund Burke. respecting the class of testimony which should be admitted and the rules of evidence that should be applied in the great impeachment trial of Warren Hastings. There was the absence of all small technicalities. and the presence of that philosophy ofjustice which best recomends itself to the humans mind. The language of Lord Hardwiehe was cited as containing the great rule by which testimony should be obtained and applied: That the judges and rhe sages of the law have laid it clown thai there is but one general rule oe evidence. the best that the nature of thi case will adroit. Now. sir. what is the testimiony. of what class of imn is the testimony that tle nature of this case will admit? There was an old maxini in regard to cases occurring in disreputable localities. testes lrpanares fure lupaarti. The salme rule rmustappulylhere. You caunot expect that highminded. purehearted men of integrity could have knowledge of such transactions as are described in this testimony. Such ion conld not be brought in contact with such offenses . they would not be permitted to have kiowledge of them. because knowledge brought to theas would necessarily result in the exposure and defeat of all such nefarious schemes. In judging of these cases. you judge of them by the best testimony of wlich the case is capable. Iere you have it. it must be Weighed. a result is obtainable. It is our duty to arrive at it. I have examined this testimony. I have read it carefully. I have weighed it. The weight of testimuony leads me to the conulnsion that the allegations of bribery are not fictions. that they are not the creations of personal malice and hostility without facts for a basis. I am compelled to believe that large stums of money were paid to mecihers of the Kausas legislature to secure their votes for Mr. CALDWaeLL. and. further. that Mr. CALDWELL had kuowledge thereof. and that he acted in complicity with his ngents. It is not necessary for me to do more than state these conclusions. premising the statement that they are made after due examination. and have beeu arrived at sadly and with regret. but not the less positively. I believe that such facts as proven constitute in themselves high offenses against republican goverment. that they aum fatal stabs at its existence. tnod render at man who coasmits them. or who aids in their commission. nufit and niworthy to sit here ant veto for al the States if this great Uiion. Justice. steady. deliberate. and clearced justice. demands his expulsion. The S ate is the guardian of its own reputation. It has the power to rebuke slander and obtain public confidence and respect. but it is by its acts and siot by cheap professions that public respect is to be attained. If corrupt mei shall be whitewashed by reports of coinmittees. if expulsion shall be voted down. where faets clearly provun jastify it. all deinnciations of fraud. all praises of honesty. will be moutihonor. meore breath. and we shall sink. as we oight to sink. in the estimation of the country. until at last it shall come to le that sensitive men of honor anul integrity will refuse to accept nmembership in t .holy which has proven that it cannot rise to a sense of duty lhr its owi vindication. Of coerse in such times gsilt will invent schemes to bliud an ionfuse public saentiment and opinion by connecting the uames of high and pure -umiided men with like offenses to its own. but whatever weak inventions of this nature may be resorted to. time will soon destroy them. The common sense of mankind. that seusse of natural just ice of which I believe the people of this country are so capable. will in the end detect the true man from the pretender. They will mark the slanderer aud they will protect the honest man. But they will rejoice over anyact ofjustico tha strikes down the cheat aci hypocrite frotm the high places of public trust. and take heart asd encouragement in every positive movement which tends to elevate the eharacter of our public men to that high level of personal integrity that is needed to nuake them trusted and beloved in their private relations. Sir. the Senate ha this (lestion in its owuhands . the effect of its decision for good or evil ecanot well be overestimated. The responsibility of calh one of usto the individual whose case we are considering and to the country whose eyes are turned upon asis indeed heavy. and we mast meet it understandingly. Such considerations ought to banish from our minds all feelings but those of high justice and patriotic duty. and these will be appreciated by oir followcouniyiymon better when expressed by our votes than by our speeches.

S

Mr. CALDWFLL

Unknown

CALDWFLL

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

I move that the Senate adjourn.

S

Mr. THURMAN

Unknown

THURMAN

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

Every Senator must begin to feel that the time has arrived-

S

Mr. SHERMAN

Unknown

SHERMAN

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

Is the motion to adjourn withdrawn ?

S

The VICE-PRESIDENT

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

03171873.txt

Temporarily.

S

Mr. THUtMAN

Unknown

THUTMAN

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

It seems to me that this subject has been debated long enough. and that by tomorrow at least w ought to have a vote on the two pending propositions. Every Senator has had at least ten days during which his rimi has been directed to this questun alone. the only question that has been presented diriug the session. Most of us have made engagemeuts. I acmong others have mado ngagemnents that may soon call nuie awavy. I should like to know what is the desire of the Senator froim lnduina in regard to the subject. what is his expectatio as to when the vote shall be taken. This is a subject that may be debated for weeks. J think thmat. rathur than adjurs at four oclock. we had better centine. usless we cals have some understanding as to when the vote can be had.

S

Mr. SHERMAN

Unknown

SHERMAN

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

My desire is to geot through as soon as it caln b done conveniently. I do not like to press the Senate to a vote in a matter of so much importance. I inidrstand there are a rruiirber of Senators yet to speakseveral who do not want to go on today. I should be glad if the argument could ba concluded by Wednesday evening. 1 do not believe it can be before that time.

S

Mr. MORTON

Unknown

MORTON

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

If we can agree to have a vote on Wednesday evening. I shall lve no objection. I submit. then. as the rule by which the Senate shall be guided in the disposition of this ease. that before the adjournment on Wednesday evening we shall dispose of this wbole matter. That will give us two more days for debate. Let that be dote by general consent.

S

Mr. SHERMAN

Unknown

SHERMAN

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

I hope that may be done . at the same time I do not agree to that except by urnaitnus consent. I wish to have some opportunity to reply to Senatora who have spoken.

S

Mr. MORTON

Unknown

MORTON

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

I should like to ask the Senator from Ohio what public necessity there is for submitting a rule or agreeing to a rule now on this matter.

S

Mr. HOWE

Unknown

HOWE

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

I think it rather i matter of public convenience that we should know when we shall probably dispose of this salijee.

S

Mr. SHERMAN

Unknown

SHERMAN

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

I do not know that the public has any convenience about it. I may have. and so may the Senator from Ohio. but that is private and personal.

S

Mr. HOWE

Unknown

HOWE

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

I will call it a private erivienice. so that each Senator may know when this iratter will probably end.

S

Mr. SHERMAN

Unknown

SHERMAN

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

That convenience will Lie onsilted. I suppose. when the Senate has disharged its duty in the prenises. and I really think this matter is altogether of too rnch moirent. the idea of porlitie necessihy being out of the way. for us to urake stipulations now that we will vote at any particular tiie. I have no purpose to take part in the debate myself. and I should like toget away froi Washington. I do not esean to be understood as stipulating that I shall not take part in the debate. I have no such present purpose. but I ai very certain thatin spite of my personal convenience. the Senate ought not to be brought toa vote on this case nitilthe Sonatehas exhansted itself upon the question. I cur not a bit tfraid of too rnch being said upon it. I think there is more danger of too little than too much being said oi such a cIuetion as that now under debate. M\r. SHERMAN. As I rho not intend. and I do not think I shall be induced even. mnder any oircrastanceus o participate in the debarte. as I have silqtait ially mnade up iny j idgineirt and am ready to vote. I merely made the suggestion which I have irade with a view to prcre trl early vote. I clo nut desire to prvnrirt airy ne speaking wire desires to do o . lit it. does seem to me that al. question rif this hind. that involves oily a coiparatively few facts. And a single caser cart le considered by any intelligent jury in at least nierdays. We have now occupied nino days ili discussing the question. and I rdo not think prolongel argumett will throw iuch further light oil it. but Its there does riot seeii to ie romnion eonsnt that tho disenssion is anout ait an end. 1 shall witldiaw all objection to its prceeding.

S

Mr. HOWE

Unknown

HOWE

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

I ar very anxies to dispose of this sulbject. I have sono very imlortant matters that requite nly attelnanceo in Pennsylvanin ieinrdiately. I do not like to leave while ti repuitation rnd thie Iortnos of a felnwirenlber here are ret stake. and vet I ought to go away. It seeins to ice thratthe Senator froni Ohio spoke very wisely when he said that nine days ought to be enonghi to dipose of this qoesti. I Irave isot ccii in tny of tIre irglunents nrilr difference. cud I doubt wlether anybodys opinion will be changed by any sperech which may bn made. I wish that we could get this matter disposed of and let us go home. This has been a hard winter. short as was the session. it was a very laborious one. the public mnind has been very much excited by supposed wrongs done in Congress. and I fear 8enator . to seine extent. have partanken of that inipression made oi the pIt hile iind. I donhti whether it would not have ireen better if we had postponed this case until next year. when we could have a calm and quiet decision upon the subject. but that is now impassible. and I hope we shall end it. Suppose we sit tonight and dispose of it. Surely by tomorrow morning we cian end the discossiou and [ave a vote. aud the next day. if it is necessary. we can take up the case front Arkansas. and tlat will be the end of our business. I put it to Senators. is it not better fir us to end this su bject now. and go honm I twas not in when the inoticn was nadne by the Senator from Ohio. and do not know its precise terms. I know te general idea of it. of course.

S

Mr. CAMERON

Unknown

CAMERON

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

Tli motioun that I snlflitted was a motion that could only be adopted today by inrinitous consent. Ltt I will offr it today so that it may be taken rip toniorrow. that before the idjournmenut o Wednesday evening this rratter shall be disposed of.

S

Mr. SHERMAN

Unknown

SHERMAN

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

Is there any objection to making that agreiment 7

S

The VICE-PRESIDENT

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

03171873.txt

If there is an objection. I will simply submit the motion now.

S

Mr. SHERMAN

Unknown

SHERMAN

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

I shrould have oor objection to sueh an order as that being made by the Senato than I should have to general consent being given. I do not nlderstand from the renark of the Senator what lie means by disposing of this case. There is a resolution betore us-

S

Mr. CONKLING

Unknown

CONKLING

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

I meant the two kindred resolutions.

S

Mr. SHERMAN

Unknown

SHERMAN

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

Ianticipated thotprobably the Senatormeaut that. eTlhro is hint er resolutioI tr urs. Anrth ta resa un lies etingeistly on the table. perhaps to be takein up.[ perhaps never to ho takeii up. When that resoltion sliall bo taken up. it involves. first. qirestions of law. upon which I believe no Senator has entered save only the Senator from Delaware. and it ilnvolves also an examination of this evidence. Now. I ani candid to aermit that I have had neither the timea nor been constrained by duty to go through the whole of this evidence. becanso. whatever it may prove in detail. it cannot change my opinion of the right of the Senate to adopt the pending resolution. lieibre. however. I vote upon that resolution. which. as I coneive. does invoice with niore probability the rightful power of the Senate. of course I shall want to look at the evidence far enough to deterinin in my own nind the questiuns of fact. I think this coast be the case with other Senates. Therefore. if we agree that oil tomorrow or the day after we shall vote upon this resolution. and. ia the event of the pending resolution failing. we shall iinurediately take up the other resolition and vote upon that. I submit to the Senator from Ohio that he could hardly reconcile it to hiaselfand ca0](d hardly say that tre observations he makes about the prcsut inquiry would be applicable to that. Mr. President. I huvo only one other word to say. This is not an ordinary proceeding of the Senate. It is not like a bill reported b.y a comtittee. the chairman of which has it in charge and has a right to urge Sonators to coini to a vote. as far as le can. a a particular tinlo. Tis is a judicinl proceeding. Every man who is here isa judge upon a question of law or ajuror upon a question of fact. or a jodge upon t irixed question of law and of fact. We are consulting with each other. We arc endeavoring to enlighten each ether. and. if we Cato. to agree upon sourething upon which the couscienceof the Senate can reprse. Therefore I snggest. as (lid rmy friend besideme[Mr. Hown.] that it is oii of the last of all instances where ai attempt should be inide to control the question by the ordinary modes of parliamentary proceeding. It is a case. I suirrrt. to which these rules do it apply. at caso in which no Senato is responsiblo iore than every other Seaator. a case with which no Senator is charged any nioro than any other Senator. I hold myself bound. us iruch as the Senator from Indiana who reported the resolution is bonnd. to know the lawofthis ease. and to assunme oall u y responsibility before I vote upon it. I canint pu it Up)on lim or uiloi the committee. or upon anybody else. oven in the sense in which in. ordinary uratters we may confide in coinnttees and ill each other. Pherefiore. vhrile I should he glad to see this matter disposed of as soon as iay be. while I should bc very glad to be relieved froni this sessirn. which I1 evidenced by submitting a resolution the othir day to adjourn firelly rio a day which has already passed. I doubt very rauch whether the good order or the vise result. in tire ase will be promoled by attempting. tnder tre reIn of the Senate. or under any agreeuiont to be obtained now. to fisx a prartieular tie when e shall vote upon either resolution. and especially upon that resolution. which has not been considered in respect of the frets which are to support it. or in respect of the law which must govern it.

S

Mr. CONKLING

Unknown

CONKLING

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

It seems to ae very obvious that we can ruake no agreetoent by nuaniarous coisent. and I begin to be very doubtful clitlrer any order of tIre Senate can be tiade to bring this case to a firal issue. For myself. I desire to take up a very little tino of the Srnrte by a brief statemnent of the reasons that bring me to the vote I shall give. I think that inost ovorythiug that can be said on this case has been said. The argircnit is very nearly or quite exhausted. and almost all that any Senator could wish to do would simiply he. in vindication of himself for the veto that he should give. to state the reasoens that bring hint h lie conclnsions. That isall thatIdesiro to do. I slall not take half an hour of the timo of the Senate. probably not twenty minutes. simply to state the reasons that bring me to the conclusioni at which I have arrived. Now. sir. in regard to the testimony of which the Senator from ew Y ork Ii spoken. lay ing aside other ttiings. upon a question of so grave a nature as this. that arises for the first time fairly before the Senate. aid n ler eircsuistanees that of all others are best ealeulated to enable us to arrive at a correct conclusion. I have felt it my dutyto read every word of this testimony with my pencil in my hand. [ do not know what other Senators lave done. I heard a reniark awhile ago that every Senator had no doubt made ophis mind. and that firtlier discussioi was unnecessary. or something of that kind. I should be very eorry indeed if every Seinator had made up his mind. itinay be tihatrotbers iaybomoregif ee thanlam. but I will say this: no legal question that I over considered has given me such serions trouble as this. and the very fact. that the best minds of to Sen ate i without any regard to party lilesar di iidd in Hpiniou upon thisqiuestionthat the Senate isnot in any waydivided bypartyshows the difficultyof the aaestio and the importance of its thorough discussion. If there are Senators wio have long ago and before discussio nirade up thlreiriinds.Ipraythem toroconsiderwhat they have done. I irry theniot to jump to a coaclusion. nor to allow concliisions at winh they have jumped. without consideration and wi thnoirt Iiarinig all the argument. to biud thea when they come to give their votes. This is a question whosc gravity can scarcely be overestimated. It is a question which cornes before the Semite tuinder cirenm rstances t hat enable us to nake a precedent that perhaps will govern in all time to coino.. for the gentlemanr who is new oii trial before tire Selntc is one who. in the lar sgoiag of the Soointor froit Missouri [lr. Sciiunz] the other clay. has iiot ar eeily on this floor. r gentlemarn coir teous in lis maniers. kind. reaictft. and mnodest . without one sligle inlan oin this floor whom he has over uftendd . a gentlenman whose question

S

Mr. TtUIRMAN

Unknown

TTUIRMAN

Unknown

M

03171873.txt

If the Senator from Georgia will allow me. I wish to offer a resolution that I should like to have read. with a view of having it printed and gettingit before the Senate tomorrow morning.

None

Mr. WEST

Unknown

WEST

Unknown

M

03181873.txt

Does the Senator from Georgia yield the floor for that purpose ?

S

The VICE-PRESIDENT

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

03181873.txt

I offer the following resolution: ]esolved. That the Select Committee on the Levees of the Mississippi River be authorized to sit during the recess. midto investigate Dand reportntpon the oondition of the levees of thoiississippi River. lso epon thapropriety of the Govrannet of the Unitcd States assiming charg and control of the same with a view to their completion and mainteanee. al that they have power to employ a clerk. and that the expenses aLt~edisg tlis investigation shall be paid out of the celtingoet fund of the Senate. upon vouchers approved by the chairman of the select emmittes aforesaid. I ask that the resolution lie on the table and be printed.

S

Mr. WEST

Unknown

WEST

Unknown

M

03181873.txt

That order will be made. if there be no objection.

S

The VICE-PRESIDENT

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

03181873.txt

I move that the Senate do now adjourn.

S

Mr. NORWOOD

Unknown

NORWOOD

Unknown

M

03181873.txt

I rise. Mr. President. to a question of privilege.

S

Mr. BOGY

Unknown

BOGY

Unknown

M

03181873.txt

The Senator from Missouri will proceed. if there be no objection.

S

The VICE-PRESIDENT

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

03181873.txt

Yesterday. while absent from my seat here. and it the Supreme Court room. a memorial was presented frotn citizens of my State alleging thatliy election as a Senator of the United States from the State of Missouri had been obtained by the use of improper means. by bribery and corruption. I feel it duo to myself. as a Senator on this floor. and duoe also ce my State. to detain the Senate for a few moments to give at brief explanation of this really important question to me and to the State which I represent in part on this floor. I repeat. Mr. President. thatt I look upon a matter of this character. as developed in the discussion of the case of another gentleman. a member of this body. as a question of very great importance. affecting the oharacter of every individnal Senator on this floor. and thereby striking at the very body itself. I have appreciated intelh the remarks that have been s ade by distinguished gentlemen here in regard to the high character this hotly shonld tuintain Imefern thou country and before the Ao011. I par tilipato in those. feelings myself. and I fel much humiliated that any portion of the people ehomo I represent uon this floor should place nce in the position which I now occupy by the presentation of this memorial. I was elected a Senator from the Stato of Missouri. I think on the 15th of January. It is true oar countests in theWest for this distinguished position. as is known to western Senators upon this floor. are always attended by heat and aniitation. and success is no easy matter. The contest in my State of coarse participated il a very higl degree in this excitement. It has been stated very generally tita money was used in that contest. but at no time was I or any of my distinguished competitors charged with having used any money. One person came in as a candidate. of no political distinction. and aocording to a phrase which has been used upon this floor. of no political status. a mati of large fortune. who. it was stated. Iai oDe ip his mind to buy a seat as a Senator from the State of Missouri. inisedialely after the election this resolution was introduced in the legislature : Whereas it has boon reported that money las boon used !i the senatorial on. test: Theretore. Be it resolved. That a eommittee of five be oppointed by the speoer. with power to send for persons nd pl)ors. aol report to this hoos at ss early a day as praeti. cable if thera beeon mouosy used to elvano tho interest of any of th senatorltal aspirants. It did not connect iue with this report. or any of my competitors. by nateic. Tie objcct was. as will be made anificst it a. few ioments. to reach another individial who had aspired. but who really was is " classified in our State as an aspirant for the Senate. This resolution was adopted. A committee was appointed consistig of five lembers. It will be seen in a sonecit how it was eomposecd and why it was thus composed. and consisted of five of the nost intelligent and worthy members of our legislature. After nearly one month. or perhaps fully one monthI ace not prepared to state the exact titieit madeo the lengthy report which I hold in my hand. lengthy as to the testimony. but brief as to the mre report itself. I will read it. so that tie Committee on Privileges and Elections may iave the full understanding of the case as it is understood at honc:

S

Mr. BOGY

Unknown

BOGY

Unknown

M

03181873.txt

I submit the following resolution: Resolved That the. Commisaincr of Agriculture b diroeted to communicate to. the Senate his last ainial report. ith .lih ecoiiipsnying papers.

S

Mr. ANTHONY

Unknown

ANTHONY

Unknown

M

03181873.txt

Is that aceort iug to law

S

Mr. SEERMAN

Unknown

SEERMAN

Unknown

M

03181873.txt

It sholihl be conuiuuiceated to Congress. butwas. not conniuicated afc the last sensioni of Coigress.

S

Mr. ANTI-IONY

Unknown

ANTI-IONY

Unknown

M

03181873.txt

Is it right flr tit Senate of the United States to call upon an officer of the GovrmiieA of the United States to conuiinuieate a report which by lawv. should be communieated to Congress 1

S

Mr. SHERMAN

Unknown

SHERMAN

Unknown

M

03181873.txt

There is no law against its being communicated to the Senate. Tl:6 object is to have tn e report printed and apprehending that the strict constructionists. who will not allow us to presetit a petities. snight object to our printing a report that was preseutel o Conieress. I offered this resolstion. that the report might be presented to to Sesato and that we umight order the usual unrber to be printed. It will be a very great inconvenience to that departnieint of the public service if the report is not printed. I thought I should accomnodate mnyself to the views of my friend fross Ohio if I proposed to direct that the repoet be aeonanuirated to the Senate.

S

Mr. ANTHONY

Unknown

ANTHONY

Unknown

M

03181873.txt

I will not inake any objection . perhap it would be iupolito to do so. The officer call do it if he chooses. but he il under i obligatio to do it.

S

Mr. SHEAMAN

Unknown

SHEAMAN

Unknown

M

03181873.txt

The resolution reads 1. directed.t

S

Mr. ANTHONY

Unknown

ANTHONY

Unknown

M

03181873.txt

We have no )eer to direct hins.

S

Mr. SHEIMAN

Unknown

SHEIMAN

Unknown

M

03181873.txt

I object to its consideration today..

S

Mr. FERRY. of Conmecticut

Unknown

FERRY

Conmecticut

M

03181873.txt