speech_id
int64 430M
960M
| text
large_stringlengths 2
245k
| chamber
large_stringclasses 4
values | date
unknown | number_within_file
int64 1
7.77k
| speaker
large_stringlengths 6
41
| first_name
large_stringlengths 1
25
| last_name
large_stringlengths 3
36
| state
large_stringlengths 1
28
⌀ | gender
large_stringclasses 4
values | line_start
int64 5
411k
| line_end
int64 6
411k
| file
large_stringlengths 12
12
| char_count
int64 1
245k
| word_count
int64 1
42.6k
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
430,000,901 | T110i Cnslunuissieoer has sm objection to doing it.
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 18 | Mr. ANTHONY | Unknown | ANTHONY | Unknown | M | 397 | 397 | 03181873.txt | 51 | 8 |
430,000,902 | I object to the whole thing.
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 19 | Mr. FERIRY. of Connecticut | Unknown | FERIRY | Connecticut | M | 398 | 398 | 03181873.txt | 28 | 6 |
430,000,903 | The Ssnator fron Connecticut objects to the consideration of the resolation. and it will lie over.
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 20 | The VICE-PRESIDENT | Unknown | Unknown | Unknown | Special | 399 | 410 | 03181873.txt | 98 | 16 |
430,000,904 | Mr. President. it might be supposed from the Dmauer in which the honorable Senator from Ohio yesterday gave me the floor for this morning. that I had made proparation upon this question. but I beg to say that. unfortunatcly. such is not the case. I wish I had prepared myself in some degree proportionate to the importance of this question. but I have not been able so to do. Having been a member. however. of an investigating committee which hadl under consideration similar legal questions. if not similar facts. to those involved in this ease. I desire to express my views upon the legal points at this time. and if the other caso should arise. there will then he nothing for me to do but to discuss the facts. Unfortunately for us and for our guidance. we are left without a precedent in authority. but. fortunately for the country and for the honor of the American name. we have also been left without a parallel in its facts. We are. therefore. remitted to reason and conscience. We have no other guides or lights by which we can be directed in coming to a proper conclusion in the final determinatiom of this case. It is hardly necessary for me to go into the eases that have been cited in order to show that we are without a precedent. but I will make a casu alluion to some of them. The case of Potter against Robbins. which stands. in proceedings of this kind. like the case of Shelley in matters of real estate. and is always referred to as a standard case. is. in my judgment. not applicable. That was a case in which Mr. Robbins. in January. 1833. was elected by a legislature of Rhode lsland a member of this body. and. in October. 1833. another legislature elected Mr. Potter. The question caneo buefore the Senate open this state of facts. Both Senators preseuted their credentials. and the question hadto be decided primarily. and mainly. which vas the legislature. and that was in fact the only direct question involved in that ease. The Senate hold that the logislature that acted in Jaunary. 1833 and elected Mr. Robbinsg. was the coustitutional body. and upon that finding seated Mr. Robbins. and the contest there ended. It is true that in that case there is much learning set forth by the committee pro and con. first by the m jority. and then by the minority. Mr. Silas Wright. in submitting his views. but that case has nothing to o vtith the facts in this. and however much that learning may be used for the purpose of elucidatioa or illustration. we can make no application of it here except in the sause way. There was no charge of any misconduct on the part of either legislature or any member of either legislature. and. therefore. I dismiss that ease as having no bearing upon this. The case of Mallory against Ylee. which has been cited by some Senators. was simply a qucetion as to whether twentynino votes cast as blanks should he counted. There was no charge of bribery. io charge of corruption. It was simply a legal question as to wha was the effect of votes cast in that way. The case of Mr. CAmEtoN. in 1857. approaches nearer to the facts of this ease than any other that we have on record. but still that has no application to this. The report of the committee. and the decision of the Senate on the report of the committee. was simply this : There being a vague charge of corruptinu on the part of Mr. CAMEUON. Or of the members of the legislature. or both. and there being no facts given. the Senate icercly resolved that it would not send out a roving comniission to hunt up the facts. which. if they existed. it was the duty of that legislature to investigate and bring to the knowledge of the Senate. In other words. the Senate simply refused to convert itself into a detective officer. So that. as I said. Mr. President. we are without a precedent. and we have no guide in this cast except our own reascu and our own consciences. We are the jurdrs and the judges to determine. first. what are the facts. and then. what is the lew applicable to those facts. In doing this. it is of the utmost importance that we bear in mind the single issue that is presented for our consideration. That is important in the investigation of all cases. and is especially important in the investigation of judicial cases. We are now acting as judges. Many collateral issues. according to myjudgment at least. have been brought into this discussion . many illustrations by way of argument have been produced. and they are calculated to confuse is. to lead us astray. to draw us from that straight and narrow path which we should travel. and which. if we do not travel. like Pilgrim. we shall on the one band sink in the Slough of Despond. or. on the other. get enchained in the Castle of Despair. We lost not allow out judgments to be affected by these side issues in determining this great question. It is a great. fnndanental. constituiuiial question. that lies deep and dark at the very base of our Government. It is to my mind one of the most important questions that the Senate has over heen called upon to consider. And that is my apology for rising to address the Senate. I believe it to be the duty of every Senator on this floor who has a conviction on this subject to express it. As the Senator froim New York FMr. CON tNG] said on yesterday. we are a bench of judges in consultation. and I shall be happy to hear the views of any Senator. however briefly they may be expressed. I have said that collateral issues have been presented here. and I now propose to get rid of them before I proceed to the main question. The first false issue we have presented to its is the danger to otr system of government. and especially to the rights of the States. if the Senate should exercise the power which is called for by the resolution that has been reported by the Committee on Privileges and Elections. We are called upon to hesitate. because there is danger ahead if we exercise that power. Well. sir. as I apprehend. there are dangers on either hand. There are dangers if we do not exercise that power. and there are dangers of equal import if we do exercise it. But what of that ? What have our apprehensions to do with our judgment? I repeat. we are judges. What would any Senator on this floor say of a judge on the bench who. instead of being guided by authority and by law. should consult his apprehensions of danger to come ? What would he think of a judge who would stop to consider what the effect of his ruling might be upon himself in sonic future ease. or upon a friend whose interests might be involved in a like ease? Sir. no pure jidgewill allow such consideratious to shape his judgmont. As ajudge he must pronounce the law. And so with us. no party considerations should influence is. no dangers to a minority should enter into our consideration. no probable change of political power in the future should influence our determination. We are here to say what is the law on the state of facts presented by the committee. and we have no right to consider consequences. political or personal. Dangers are around us. If we adopt the resolution of the committo. then it may be possible that in some future question like this. in high political excitement. some Senator inight he miflawfnll. deprived of his seat. But if. on the other hand. we decide that that resolutio is wrong. then the Sonate of the United States itself may become the refuge of scoundrels. a sanctuary for criminals. If in the case of thejudge upon the bench the law works a hardship. it is for the legislature to correct the evil. I this case. if the law as we may lay it down endangers State rights or works evil to the Senate. then it is in the power of the people. through their legislatures. threefourths of them concurring. to adopt such amendments to the Constitution as will correct the evil. Therefore. Mr. President. I say I do not stop to consider what are the dangers surrounding us. I am lookinz simply to the question of law as my judgment conceives it. and I intend upon that judgment to cast my vote. shutting out of view all apprehended dangers. Another collateral matter is raised by an interrogatory propounded the other day by the Senator from Pennsylvania to the Senator from Missouri. when he was addressing the Senate. The question was this. as I remimemnber. and if I be in fault I hope the Senator from Pennsylvania will correct me: When the Senator from Missouri was discussing the power of the House of Representatives to investigate the acts of the lecotors of the members of that branch of Congress. the Senator from Pennsylvania sked him whether a committee of the flouso of Representatives. or the House itself. could investigate the fact that an elector for a meniber of the House had procured his naturalizationpapers by bribig a member of the court. What hearing has that upon this ease? It has none. and yet it is calculated to mislead. nless we understand the import of the question . and I now propose to show the parallel between the case put by the Senator from Pennsylvania and the case of an elector of a Senator to this body. The House of Representatives cannot investigate that question. and why ? The action of the court in grantlag the naturalizationpapers is a judgmentof that court. Apetition is presented by a party desiring to be n aturalized . the facts are brought to the knowledge of the court. the court passes upon the facts. and that becomes a judgment of thecourt. and it is a very wellsettled principle of law that you cannot in any collateral proceediog attack the judgment of a court. This rule would hold in the investigation whioh would be instituted by the oIue of Representatives. But now comes the parallel. When that elector has been natiralized and he casts his vote. then the house of Representatives may inquire whether that vote was obtained by bribery. They cannot go baek of his naturalization . but when he becomes an elector. and stands upon the same footing as a nativeborn citizen. yon can investigate the thet as to whether he has been bribed. just as in the case of one nativeborn. And so as to an elector for a Senator. While you canmot go back of the act that makes that man an elector in the legislature. yet when he becomes an elector. when be is seated as a niemaber of the legislature of the State by the adtion of that legislature. then his act as an elector may le the subject of investigation. and yon may inquire in that case. as in the case of an elector of a membe of the popular braeh of Congress. as to whether his vote has been induced by bribery. Another issue that has been raised is as to whether the Senate would have the power to investigate a case and to vacate a seat if a Senator had scoured his seat by a promise of office to a friend. or by a > promise of his influence to secure an offier.
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 21 | Mr. NORWOOD | Unknown | NORWOOD | Unknown | M | 418 | 584 | 03181873.txt | 10,807 | 1,968 |
430,000,905 | Before my friend leaves the other point. as hd called my attention to it. with his permission I will say to him that he up. prehended only in part the purpose of the question which I put to the Senator from Missouri. While we agree that the judgment of the court cannot be inquired into for thopurpree of setting aside the right of thc naturalized citizen. the Senator forgets that my question had in it two clenments. The report of the committee took the gronind that one bribed elector would set aside the whole election. and my question went to the point whether. even if you could inquire into the judgment and show that one of three judges had been bribed. you 1.04 counild set aside the judgment. intending to apply it to the arguinent of the committee. that iroof that one elector had been bribed ini a legislature would set aside an election although there was a majority of tweitylive.
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 22 | Mr. SCOTT | Unknown | SCOTT | Unknown | M | 585 | 610 | 03181873.txt | 894 | 161 |
430,000,906 | Mr. President. I can say to the Senator from Pennsylvnia that I an in accord with him upon thepoint that the bribing of nevoter. ifthat does not secure the election. does not avoid it. I suppose that is an answer to his question.
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 23 | Mr. NORWOOD | Unknown | NORWOOD | Unknown | M | 611 | 614 | 03181873.txt | 229 | 43 |
430,000,907 | Then we are in entire accord.
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 24 | Mr. SCOTT | Unknown | SCOTT | Unknown | M | 615 | 615 | 03181873.txt | 29 | 6 |
430,000,908 | In entire accord upon that point. I nm glad to hear the Setiator say we are in entire accord. because I take the position that. if the election of a Senator is secured by bribed votes. that wuld Vacate his seat. I
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 25 | Mr. NORWOOD | Unknown | NORWOOD | Unknown | M | 616 | 619 | 03181873.txt | 213 | 42 |
430,000,909 | That is another point. on which we are not in accord.
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 26 | Mr. SCOTT | Unknown | SCOTT | Unknown | M | 620 | 620 | 03181873.txt | 53 | 11 |
430,000,910 | I wanted to know whether we agreed on that point.
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 27 | Mr. NORWOOD | Unknown | NORWOOD | Unknown | M | 621 | 622 | 03181873.txt | 49 | 10 |
430,000,911 | No. sir.
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 28 | Mr. SCOTT | Unknown | SCOTT | Unknown | M | 623 | 623 | 03181873.txt | 8 | 2 |
430,000,912 | Then. Mr. President. the question that I was on when interrupted by the Senator from Pensylvania was as to whether we can go into an investigation of a case where inflaence has been promised to a party to secire his vote. I say again. that has nothing to do with this case. The simple question hero is. and it is iiportant for us to bear it in mind. can we vacate a sent eltaiiied by bribery? It is unnecessary for us to go iuto the investigation of other questions or the consideration of other facts. When they arise it will be proper for the Senate to consider them. but how unreasonable it is fur a btehofjdges. when they are considering a question nade by a record. and bt one question involved in that record. to be led off on oitside issues. Anlother (aetion has been raised here as to the power of a legisla tare to repeal an act which lies been secured by bribery. I difler w.ith iiany of the Senators who have spoken oii thispoint. I consider the question immaterial here. but still. as it has been brought in and has been discussed. I propose briefly to submit. my views upon it. An ac. of the legislature that has been procured by hribery cin be repealed by anbsequent lcgislatnra so faras to affect the rights of those who procured the passage of the act by the bribery. If the rights of third parties intervene. the ease is different. but if the question is confined to the parties who procured the passage of the aet. (on the prineiplo of law that no mall can take advantage of his ewti wrong. and the further principle that he lae procured the passage of tin act by the coinmission of a crime.) that act is not valid. anti it only remns for any subsequent legislature so to declare. The celebrated case of Fletcher vs. Peck. arising out of the Yazoo frauds in the Sta e of Georgia. has been relied upon as authority el the obher side. to show that a susequent legislaturo cannot repeal an act that has been procured by corruption and bribery. I respectfully sumit to the Senate that the case of Fletcler es. Peck does not bear out that enuiciation. Tie ease was. brietly stated. this : AI. iand others. who procarel the passage of lhe act by bribery. ohtained the grant of lanuds. and inimuediately rtifer seeuring the grant node a transfer to other parties. who were innoceit of the bribery. and. indeed. not cogozant of the fact. The qutection thein arose before the courts as to whether the rights of these thirdl parties. to whoia the tratnsfer of those lauds had lien madti be i lie parties who had bribed the legislature. could be affected iiy a repealilg act passed. over is year afterward. by a sobseqaent legielatnroi nd thSupremno Court held thlt it could not be. atd ipp. it expressly ol tho ground that the repcalirg act would be in violatio of that clanse of the Constitution of the United States which forbids any State to inpair the obligation of a contract. Now. as between tie original parties to the fraud. I call the attention of the Senate to what the court say. the decision being delivered by Chief Justice Marshall: In this case the legislature caly have had anple proof tiatho original grait as obtained by praetices which caii never i too much reproited. s oawi oucld hare j stifid its ahrogatioi so far as respected those to whom the crime was imputab. k t r the grant. when issten. convoyed an estate in feesieplO to the grant". clotted with all the solemnities which law can bestow. This estate was transferasn. and thea w ho psrehased partse f it v.era not. stsiied by tiz p.ilt shirh ifcted the origia i transaotion.- (Cranehs l eports. pages 134. 135. And so the court go on for a page more upon that line of reiurks. and Mr. Justice Johnson. who dissented froa the decision of the court. dissents upon the ground that the court placed its decision upon the clause in the Constitetion which forbids a State to impair the obligation of a contract. Now. Mr. President. I propose to submit a few remarks upon the main question involved in this case. to wit. what is the effect of bribery upon the election of Mr. CAL)WLL? 1 assume now that the bribery. if it exists. procured the election of Mr. CALanWELL. and not that there was only one vote bribed or any number lies thtan the ainnber of his majority. I say. Mr. President. that this election is void. because. if it was procured by bribe ry. ittas iot as electicn. I state the propositiou that. if it was procured by bribery. it was not all lection . and aow. in considering that question. it becomes necessary for me to go into a consideration for t few minutes of the nature of a legislaturo acting as electors of a Senator of the United States. In what capacity do they act ? Are they acting asalegislatiare? Is the State acting in her sovereign capacity 7 When a legislature meets and resolves itself into a body for the election ifa Senator. in what capacity are those men acting i If they are acting sa us a isaiie. then they ore passing a law. for a legislaturo is a body for the enactmet of laws. Bat is the election of a Senator the enatmenut of a law? If they are not. then. acting as a legislature. in what other capacity ca they be acting except in the capacity of electors? To show that they are acting simply as electors. and that they are in no seite acting us a legislature. let us look for a ollnient a.t the manner ii which they act. Mr. IAYARD). If ti Senator will allow me. I will merely remark that. if they are not actitg as a legislature. they are not acting in accordalce with the Constitution of the United States. they are not acting. therefore. at all. Their action is void unless they me acting as a legishture. The language of the Constitution is thatche Senate of the United States shall he composed of two Senators tron each State. chosen by the legislature thereof. Now. how can they choose unless they choose as a legislatureI
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 29 | Mr. NORWOOD | Unknown | NORWOOD | Unknown | M | 624 | 713 | 03181873.txt | 5,857 | 1,072 |
430,000,913 | I au glad the honorable Senator interrupted me. it does not disturb me in the lcas. I ui happy to answer hin. What is the legislature of the State? What does it assemble for? To naet laws for the people of the State to which it belongs. for the people who elect it. And how do they act wlu they are acting as a legislature There is a senate and ahouse of representatives. The Senate acts independently of the house. aid the house indpeindently of the senate. They pass laws according to the constitution of that State. and in that capacity they are a legislature. Now. when the honorable Senator says that. if it is not acting as a legislature in olecting a Senator. it is not aeting ia accordance with the provisions of the Conetitution. lie is sticking itt the bark. Hoe the Congress of the United Slates tiny control over that hody as at legislatune ft Cani the Congress of the United States control the action of that body acttig as a legislature? Can it prescribe the manner in which it shall pass laws? When acting as a legislature and passing laws. what control hls the Congress of the United States over it 7
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 30 | Mr. iNORWOOD | Unknown | INORWOOD | Unknown | M | 714 | 730 | 03181873.txt | 1,116 | 206 |
430,000,914 | Does the Senator wish an in wcr now?
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 31 | Mr. BAYARD | Unknown | BAYARD | Unknown | M | 731 | 731 | 03181873.txt | 36 | 8 |
430,000,915 | It has the control which the Constitution expressly gives to Congress.
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 32 | Mr. BAYARD | Unknown | BAYARD | Unknown | M | 733 | 734 | 03181873.txt | 70 | 11 |
430,000,916 | To control it in passing laws ?
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 33 | Mr. NORWOOD | Unknown | NORWOOD | Unknown | M | 735 | 735 | 03181873.txt | 31 | 7 |
430,000,917 | Not to control it in passing laws. bat the Constitutio of the United States delegaies to the Congress of the United States the power of altering the regulations of the State. that is. the laws of the State. as to the ti1ue and ianner of holding elections. So far the legislature of the State in holding elections for Senators is controlled by the law of Congress uder a power expressly delegated to Congress by the Constitution. quite as inuch as the power is delegated to the legislature of the State to choose its Senators.
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 34 | Mr. BAYARD | Unknown | BAYARD | Unknown | M | 736 | 743 | 03181873.txt | 525 | 94 |
430,000,918 | Now. then. if it is acting as a legislature. as I said. (for we must come to the ihfinite term.) it mus pass a law. The meaning of a legislature is a iody to enact laws But thie nistake the honorable Senator from Delaware is making is sinip]y this . the Constitution of the Uniteid Sta os does nothing itore than marely thisigtial. thn body. the coilectiont of iiici. who are to net inl the capacity of electors of Uiiitedl Stales Sitatsre. The Congress of the Unitel States. under tie Constitution. has the power to control tho legislature as it may please. as to tinm m n nutter for choosing at Senator. Ias the Congress of the United States any econtrol over it as a legislative body V No one. I do not care how far he may go in grasping it centralizatio and consolidation. and giving power to Congress over the States. will contend that Congress has any right to Cl..irol n State in its legisiatise capacity. aim I ant surprised at the istorable Senator from l)ehware whe he assites upon this floor that when Congress passes an act prescribing the time and mannor in which a Seuator is to te elected. i is directing the action of a State legislature. as a leqislhttrc. To show that I am not mistakes in this. let us look firther. How does the legislature at? It acts through its separate bodies. but Congress has the poswer. sander that provision of the Constitntion giviug it the right to prescribe the tine adtI manner of holding the election. to say that the legishatiro shall resolve itself into any forin that Congress may see fit to proscribe. must act in any manner that Congress may say it shall act. And how does Congress prescribe? Why. that the senate an house of representatives of the State legislature shall meet in joist contenlion and elect a Senatr of the United States. Is it aetiug ast a legislature when it mneets ii joint convcntion? Does the honorable Senator from Delaware know of any legislature that ineets in joint convention. when acting as a legislatare. to nact a law I
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 35 | Mr. NORWOOD | Unknown | NORWOOD | Unknown | M | 744 | 773 | 03181873.txt | 2,002 | 361 |
430,000,919 | 0. yes. sir. Before the act of Congress prescribing the manacr and the tume of election was passed at ill. when the mannor was left as the Constitution lf it. primlrily with the States. the legislatures of the States met under State law in joint convention for the pnrpse of ehuseting Seniaeors. That was. indeed. I believe. the only way. They never elected separately. or proposed to elect separately. until the passage of the act of Congress. but the two homuses met as a legislature in joint assembly . and I think it would require a remarkable refinemet and discrimination that. without disrespect to the Senator from Georgia. 1 might call hairsplitting. to decide betweoi persons who are rnetbers of the legislatur acting in their legtehltive capacity. and who are members. whetler they be in Jint assembly under the law of the State. or in joint assembly under shio direction of blit act of Ceiigrcss passed in pursuance of the Consti. oilion.
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 36 | Mr. BAYARD | Unknown | BAYARD | Unknown | M | 774 | 788 | 03181873.txt | 949 | 162 |
430,000,920 | The honorablu Sauntor fron Delaware loses sight of the fact that is pilain and palpable. that when they meet to elect a Senator thin sire nota tiag t a l .iehIattce. apacity . anid lIhat is the ailseer to the wehs qaestio. ltey tre: t heii in 11) Stiils a ing st a legislature . shcy are castil votes und1tier i provision of tihe C (set i tntiotI Isn isd by tIIo di reet)u ittoF Cong ross to elect a Soinstor to this bedy. atil they tineseftro are nothin more thrn a idesigntated tody under the provi.sioes of tie Coustitution which is to elect umsdbers to this body. Why. sir. suppose that the Constitution. instead of saying that the legislature shall elect members to this body. had said thit the isprete court of the State shoul elect Senators. will the lonorable Senator say that when that supreme court should sit and cast their votes for a Senator they were acting as a court. simply Lecatee the members of tho court had been designated as the proper body to elect the Senator I Woild they in so doing render jedicial judgment ? They would simply be a body ofuo. as in this case the legislature is. that is designated by the einstitution of the United Statcs to exercise the tlowxer vested in then to elect members to this body.
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 37 | Mt. NOR1WOOD | Unknown | NOR1WOOD | Unknown | Unknown | 789 | 819 | 03181873.txt | 1,235 | 228 |
430,000,921 | If the Senator will yield. I should like to ask him another question.
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 38 | Mr. BAYARD | Unknown | BAYARD | Unknown | M | 820 | 821 | 03181873.txt | 69 | 13 |
430,000,922 | Very well.
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 39 | Mr. NORWOOD | Unknown | NORWOOD | Unknown | M | 822 | 822 | 03181873.txt | 10 | 2 |
430,000,923 | Do the Senators in this body repreoet the States or do they represent the electoral body that ehose thsel I D they represent this body of electors or are they here to represout the State? Re]ad I lie cencluding part of Article V of the Constitution : xo Silte. without its consent. shall be doprivod of its equal alirags in the Senate. Does not that answer the whole qiation is to how the Senator shall be chosen aund who chooses hint? hit Conesstition says the legislature shullchsoeehit . the Constitution says tist lie shall be chosen to nepresett the State . and yet the iioiiorabi Senator here is seeking to iud a diflence between a legislature acting nunder thedireltiss sr Coiugross. perhaps separately. perhaps it joint assembly. and a legislature acting under State law as aa elective body. The Senator des not represent those wino elected hins . Ie represents the sovereign State . and hen right is his right of sitrage in th Setnate. and it is so declared in the Constitutiton. The election is a legislative act. and not the act of the individeal is a Ii senre iioh. without legislative atulhoriby.
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 40 | Mr. BAYA.RD | Unknown | BAYA.RD | Unknown | M | 823 | 839 | 03181873.txt | 1,109 | 194 |
430,000,924 | I agre with the hosorable Secnto". perfectly. litb the Suiatos represe rh State. llrit they rt prestllt the overio gity of the Slate. but that is foreign to this qruestion. I do not intend to he led off upo any side issues. The question here is. who lect Senators. and in electing tlien in what capacity do they act? Tliat is the question. and tot what the Senators represent. Nobody. I suppose. will question that they represent the States. But when Chy are to be chosen. and the legisiators aseet to chiese tlien. in vhat capacity to the legislators act? That is the sole qustiotn. and wo are therofref remitted to the question again. dt they at ace iegislatur I If they she. theis they are legislatii. they arc e iring in a legisiatie cuspaeity. and they are not simply acting as eleotors of Setsat I repeat Chat they" are nothing ore hai the coiptt parts of a ltartienlar lody that is desigiated by the Constituation as the body to Ust the votes in choosicg a Senator to this body.
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 41 | Mr. NOIRWOOD | Unknown | NOIRWOOD | Unknown | M | 840 | 854 | 03181873.txt | 985 | 180 |
430,000,925 | Will th Senator allow me to call his attention to one provision of the Constitution
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 42 | Mr. MORTON | Unknown | MORTON | Unknown | M | 855 | 856 | 03181873.txt | 83 | 15 |
430,000,926 | Certainly.
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 43 | Mr. NORWOOD | Unknown | NORWOOD | Unknown | M | 857 | 857 | 03181873.txt | 10 | 1 |
430,000,927 | The Contitition provides thatThe iuse of ttolresentativo shell Ie oomposoil of itembers chosn every second year fly te people of the soveral Stites. That is. elected by the people of the several States. Again: T£he &iaiete oif the United States siatl lie composed of two Senttors frot cach State. chosen by the legislature flileof. That is. elected by the legishatisre thereof. in which. of course. the nimtubrs of that body are merely to be electors.
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 44 | Air. MORTON | Unknown | MORTON | Unknown | M | 858 | 865 | 03181873.txt | 451 | 75 |
430,000,928 | There is to my mind. Mr. President. no dosbt as to the proper constroction of that word " chosen." ae mnntiied by the Senator front Indiana. They do not act in a legislative capacity at all. They are not a legislatsre when they umeet to elect a Senlatinr. Tey aire tise body appoiatcd iy the Constitstion. ant Cuigress cannot clange that. but that was done hecaeso thle gislatire of the State is the iost convenient ant the best body to t in choosing a Senator to represent that State. they do not represent the legislatire. and the legislature in choosing them is not the sovereign power of the State . they are unothignoro than the electors apiointted under the Constititiou to make the choice. Mr. President. I say. therefore. acting in the capacity of electors yhuri they comh to choose a Senator. the legislature of a State. if is casting their votes as seh electors they are controlled by brihery. and tiat bribery results in procuring the election of a Seisator. it mahkes that sleetio void. Bribery is a crinue at common lw. Assniling sly proiiisnes to be correct. that they are acting as electors iu dhesing a Sciucor. I say that any election by the popular voice. or by any other body who are decsignated Aimply as electors. and acting in the ime capacity. will be void. if it is secured by bribery. flur the reason that it hos its inception in crime. its progress in erine. and ends in crinie. And no election thus beginting. thus progressing. this cnding. cui be valid in law. oitherat common law or under the provisions of te Coastitution. But there was another view presented by the Senator fron Deaware yesterday to which I propose to advert for a momnte. His proposition is Cluat in investigatinig this matter. in acting uson the resolution reported by the Cosinittee ea Privileges cnd Elections we shouli be investigating the nction of the State. He admits that the logis]atroi is iio. Cho overciguty of the State. a.3 I iuniertand hin . and yet his teosition is that if we wer" tt) instigtct n act. sIt bribery we honls 1)e acting upon the sovereignty of iit States. Mr. President. that is lot consistent. The legisltture is biut. tie representative of tre people of the State. Tre people are tl sovrcign power. We arc not investigating the acts of Cho people of the State. we are no investigiting the acets of that entity which is called a State. we are not investigating that which represents at idea which we call sovereignty. but we are investigating tile acts of those wlo are designated unider tile Constitstion as a body of electone. and who act under the laws of Congress when castiiig their votes in electiing a Senator. So that in no sense can it be said that we are investigating the acts or the action of a sovereign State. But suppose it wore true that we were investigating the acts of a soveteign State. are we not authorized by the Constitstion to investigato its acts? Has not the State to a certain extent surrenderei its sovereignty upon this question l ins not the State delegated to the General Governmelnt tie powcer to control this question ? Has it not in the Constitution of the United States consented that the Corgross of the United States shall prescribe the time and manner of ioldiig tine election ? Has it not consented that the Constitut.ion of the United States shall prescribe the particular body that shall elect tihe Senator ? Let us see to what extent the States have delegated power and jurisdiction over the qisestion of their representatioe in this body. First. they have limited their repieseunatiilt to two nntiers. Seeondly. they have in the Constitution prescribed and limitsd beyond cha igo the qiifications of tlhirSeirors. Thirdly. this isa surrender of an attribiste of sovereignty. to wit. the right to choose enbaseadors without prescription of their qnaliications by the power or sovereiguty to which they are commissioned. Forirthily. they have stirrendered lhi right to designaito the body of (lectors who shall chose theirScnators. The Constitation regeflates that. and no State can change it. Fifthly. they have sirrederecd the right to fix the lime for oeecting Senators. Sixthly. they have surrendered the right to rega lite tti maner rf their eletiot. Sisventily. t Iy have Nurrosidreil their right to dceideon tc legality of the "elections. retris. and qualificatiorns" of their Senators. Anti if it he true that we :r0 invesrigating the act. of a State. our investigation is withe the boutlds linnited in the Constitition hy the States themsslves. Here ire seven distinct points ia which the State. in ter sovertigs capacity. alnd acting in tier sovereign capacity. ht yieleld to the General Government the power of supervision and control over her Senaters. and call it lie true thati when the Sotiate ascusees to act tsoder those powers conferred by the States. and under the laws eticted by Congress throtgh that provisio of the Constittion giving Colgress tie power to regulate tIe tillie and niallner of elettiolis. we are infringing npon her sovereighty 7 When site consents that it cerlain lody slall .net as electors of Senators. aud tut o sin l i ivestigato the manner tof their election and the tiio of that eoetion aud the cictuiotn itself. is there any invasion of State rights ! Jurisdioion liss been coifrredt by th Constitution . nobody dislites that fact. not even ti lointrablo Senator fron Delaware. and the sole question is as to how far that juridiction goes. We can investigate the qualifications. we can investigate the returni. Ae can investigate tie election . aud the attic qtcstios. I repeat. is how far the Senate shall go in considering the validity of the electin.
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 45 | Mr. NORWOOD | Unknown | NORWOOD | Unknown | M | 866 | 953 | 03181873.txt | 5,671 | 971 |
430,000,929 | I should like to say a word to soy friend. with his permissisi. if it will not ainoy hilli.
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 46 | Mr. STOCKTON | Unknown | STOCKTON | Unknown | M | 954 | 955 | 03181873.txt | 91 | 19 |
430,000,930 | It will be so ainoyanee.
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 47 | Mr. NORWOOD | Unknown | NORWOOD | Unknown | M | 956 | 956 | 03181873.txt | 24 | 5 |
430,000,931 | Perhaps so far freom annoying te Srnator fuona Georgia it nity be a con vessettee to hia1i t k( tttiv fLot that 11t may iot recollect. The firt claaicoffthe fourth section of tie) first article of the Constitution. the one to wich ho las refernce. providos tChatThe t sees. place. and manner of hosling e ctions for Senators uul .eprxentatives Shall h presecribel in each State by tihe logislattur threof. btut the Congiess eusyatalY tis Ltiv n . ko. or alter aulg regalbies. excexmpt as tono t lats ef etOissiag Senator. This provision was assailed in the State conventions. on the grontd that Congrees might contrive the niinerof holding lectio s so as to exclude uil but their own favorites frot office. Ve ctoventioti of the States of Virginia. Massachusetts. Now Htampshire. New York. Rhodo Islnd. and Soth Carolina accompaniel their ratifitio of Ihe Constitntlon with a solemn protest against the power (t l tigress over the ilctios. They prparel sid .iendinents to the Giitttittie. calculated to ctry out their view. and recorded upon their .ijmisttls perietual instrctions to their Representatives in Congriss to 1tige earnestly end zealously their adoption. aud to refrain fronn fie exercise of iny power inconsistent with the principles of the proposed ainendisnets. Judge Story. in his Commeutaries otn the Coestitution. section 826. after having stated the octions to the latter part of the dlanse which were made at the time of the adoption of the Constitstion. and tho reasoning b which they were made. ths concludes: A period of oetyears bee cilto pasactt by cvitetut any atteip hby Ctmgress to make any ioieolatiosis oi interfere itt tlhe silLtsb degree in tioleciins t ieutbers of doiresS. If therefore. exterince ocls demonstrate anytnlnng. it is the entire saltv of tho mwer ill itongress. which it is scareely ponsibl tsaiitg frain the ts) should be exerted except upon tery ureet oooasios. The States e W igtii~ othe tixie. rho place. and the InilitIor ot eeitios. iti a leretucel si0so exclusively. The suiiner is Y various. ae prliat.is the power ihas booell ex. cried in some irstknces. Inler the ilnflenlo of local or party fcolinas. so n esetit which is oietorsilsle in principle nod policy. There is no shniforiityin tie choice or in thoi role of election. In nois0 Statrn the leprienutativce are eoein by . general ticket fier the whole State. in otters they am chostit singly ni districts. &i. lk some States tle candidate must have a majority of all the oil s to entitlo him to be tiieemed elected. in others (as it is in Fnglanil) it is eulicient if lie has i pistalily ofvOtcs. In soma ef theoStates the choice isby the votcrsi vor. (as it to in Eniglarl.) in othnr it Is by ballot. The times of the elections are quito as varios. siactisies before nod sometimes ofter the tgular period at which the olien becomes vacant. That this want of tiiforsiit as is the ti e and mode of elect ion hos been priodctive of slime iacoelltenioto to tite public service Cannot be doubted. for it has sometimes occerred it n extra seksison i whole State lie been deprived of lie vate. ilul G the rogular nosnious sonie district hove fr.ilori of teing represented upon luestions vital to their Itrterests. Still. so srong has been the neosi of Cosyrass of the importane of leaving those intters to State regulation thioat in effort has been hitherto made to core these evils. an publie oplnton has almost irr itibly settled down in favor of til extsting system. Mr. Preaident. contrary to the prediction of the learned commentator. Congress passedi an act i 1542. entitled iiAil act for the appor. tionment of Representatives among the several States. according to the sixth coosus." tite second section of which provides that in every case where it State is entitled to more than ont Representative. the nmber to which each State shall be entitled under this apportionment shall be elected by districts. composed of contigtous territory. equal in tumber to the number of Representatives to which the State nmy he entitled. The authority endor which Congress made this provision was the fourth section of the first article of the Constitetios. the nitter part of which says Congress umy at any time muake or alter the State regulations it reference to tile nlanter of choosing Senators and Representatives. When that law of Cougress passed. New Hatepshire. ]New Jersey. Alabatta. Georgia. Mississippi. aod Missouri had electionlaws requiring their Representatives to be elected by general ticiet. Now .] orsey suid Alabama conformed to the law of Congress. It was insisted that tilte elections of New Hampshire. Georgia. Mississippi. and Missouri. under the State law. were void. The debate oic the subject oecnpied a large part of the session. The majority of the conmtitteo to whom it was referred. reported that the law was unonstitntional. aod the inenihers elected on general ticket entitloe their seats. The minority reported that the law was valid. nd the seats should be decelared vacant. Neither report was formally agreed to. but it was voted by a decided ocajority that the members retain their seats. The reports were both prepared by geutlemout of great abilitythe majority report by Stephen A. Douglas. and that of the minority by Garrott Davis. bat both the majority report of Mr. Douglas and the minority report of Mr. Garrett 1avis agree. so far as the question which we non have before us is concerned. Mr. Donglas says: An imperative dity rests upon the legislatures. while aemere privilege is granted to stgres. It tiln perfrnianco of this dity. the legislatures are clothled aith a wide dicretiti. upon which tho Constittinit imposes ito restraints. They nty pmvide ler elections by gential ticeet. or in ditilcts. fosr votir by ballot oir viv tore. for opening the polls at once place and oni one day. or at iiferrrt places Iud il dlifferenit tIeys. Tlhese. aind all thlngstertactiiing iii ilin tittmen laen d rninor of hIlilng elections. are eelidteld t is wisont discretitn of tile several legislature. to in perlermd in such inanner as they shall dein most favorable to popular rights and just reprsenctetioa. He alades to the fact that when General Pinelaey proposed in the convention which formed the Constitution. that the Represontatives "should be elected in such manner as the legislatures of each State shall direct." he urged. among other reasons. in support of his plan. " that tlis liberty wold give more satisfaction. as th legislatures could then aeonammodate the mode to the convenitnto and opinions of the people." Mr. Garrett Davis says: Some of the etatre have passed laws regiilating their election of Senators others are not. etnd yet the contitutioaality of the regulations of the latter States for holding hlieir eleotions of lteprecsontatiis has net bueli rll callnt be questind. Such Stites as sarn no regulations by law for tie senatorial electiors only nako them also. So (oagress could pass it law requiring thil. oleotion f P.eatrs iierally for thait wonid be an alteration of the election regilations osts of titl Crates by aid iog to them.. Ceoss nitll the. esstisb uniiirciit0 lie tootle(e of eleetitig Senators. try enacting a lasw sequiring both bnronches of tile Slain legisinttes ii) ceese by thetc aegregate vote. cost m0ght cortlino its. sciko to that or sny ether psrtinlhr regulation Per the eleetiot ef Senano. Th t trinci plelin generally neoniled in senatorial eosiono. fe. T k Stale lrgintnt.ren might alter their existipg roCtlatios relatlng to tile i psiane. i niiur. oftune5 their action in either ncie . This report proceeds to illustrate the meaning of th expression "ehose " by the legislatore. as ased in the Constitution in reference to Senators. and "chosen" every second year by the people of the several States. in reference to Representatives. insisting that this is otly an iilication of the body of electors. lo the manner of le.tions. or the absurdity fbllows that the people of every State not otly have a right. but are bound to " choose" the lotse of Representatives which is the natural result and the only logical result of the proposition proltosed. I beg pardon of the Senator from Georgia for occupying his tine. and perhaps it may be vell for to to explain that I owas rening front tity own remarks submitted to the Seuate on a foroter oceasios. when the Now Jersey case was before the Senate. I examined this miatter carefully thea. and I really felt. ia view of the rensarks the Senator was mnaking. that I had a right to call the attention of the Senate to the fact of the origin of this clause of the Constitntion. of the view taken if" it by all those distintgished men. tid of the protest whiclh was inado at lhe tinic thet) Coititution was formed again st such constructio bring put tpon this iause as 1 think Iy distinguished friend front Georgia is now putting opon it.
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 48 | Mr. STOCKTON | Unknown | STOCKTON | Unknown | M | 957 | 1,098 | 03181873.txt | 8,883 | 1,495 |
430,000,932 | Will my friend frot New Jersey tell uo what was the decisiou of the Senate after having heard that argument I
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 49 | Mr. THURMAN | Unknown | THURMAN | Unknown | M | 1,099 | 1,101 | 03181873.txt | 109 | 21 |
430,000,933 | In reference to that arguntent it would be very difticult for oce to tell how the Senate decided . but as there are mny Senators presentwho recollect all tle circumstances. the Senator from Ohio will find no difficulty in getting information on the subject.
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 50 | Mr. STOCKTON | Unknown | STOCKTON | Unknown | M | 1,102 | 1,105 | 03181873.txt | 257 | 44 |
430,000,934 | I till very intleh obliged to the Senator froin New Jersey tier interrupting 1to. becatuse. having a severe cold. ly voice is out of order. ani the interruption has afforded me a rest. I must. however. apologizn to hint in return fer asking hin what particular poiit lie presentA by reating that long speech.
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 51 | Mr. INORWOOD | Unknown | INORWOOD | Unknown | M | 1,106 | 1,110 | 03181873.txt | 308 | 54 |
430,000,935 | The point presented. in the first place. is the soleosse protest ettered by the States at the tine of the formation tif the Constitution against interfercen by Congress with the elections. The point is. that Judge Story says that for forly years Congress never attempted to prescribe any "inlanner 11 whatever. atiel froam the whole of those roears. as aveli as the report of Mr. Davis. that the meaning of the word "manner" and the eflent of the word "nuaner . as used in the Constittion. did not refer at all to any interlbreneo with the motives of the choice. is manifest beyond question. Then we have the remarks of Mr. Pinckney whon the clause was first introduced in the Constitution of time United States. and. finally and lastly. the reports of Stephen A. Donglas and Garrett Davis opon the differenco between the body of electors. that the word " chosen " ie the same dlanse of the Cetotstitntion had a very different ineaning when it referred to members of the legislature. and if you gave it any other meaning. you obliged all the States of the Uion to ehtoso all the titluers of Congress. Those points were the cardinal points of my proposition.
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 52 | Mr. STOCKTON | Unknown | STOCKTON | Unknown | M | 1,111 | 1,128 | 03181873.txt | 1,157 | 204 |
430,000,936 | As to the first point presented by the honorable Senator relating to time protest that was sent up by those States. a suflicient answer to it is it lex scripta est. They may have protested against the adoption of such a provision. but ithe provision is in the Constitution. Congress. by the Constitution. has the power to proscribe tile time and manner of the election of a Senator . and that is a stffliciat answer to that protest. As to the second point. as to the choosing of a Senator. I have siply to say that the word "choose" there cau moan iothing else than "electt and who legislators meet in convention for the purpose of electing. they are not legislators. but electors. aud. as snch electois. their action is subject to the review of this body. Ilow can it be otherwise I We are hero now speaking in the interest of State rights. ionorable Senatos say it would be detirineutal and destructive to State rights to hold Chat the Senate of the United States teight inquire into the validity of ann election upon a question of bribery. 1. on the other haasd. naintais that it is not only within the power of the Senate. couferred by that provision of the Colstitution. brt whenover the casu arises it is the paramount duty of the Senate to investigato that question iun the protection of State rights and in the preservation of purity and the perpetuation of repabliean governmot. Where woild we drift if this poawer eold not be exercised ? A man prostitutes the legislature of a State. absoltely debaahes it with money. secures his election. comes here. atd presents himself to be sworn in as a member of this body. and yet we are told the Senate cannot investigate the crime. bteause it does not affect the acanner. though it affects the essence of the election. and becanse the motives of kite members of the legislature might be involved. Why. sir. we are not investigating notives. As the Senator fiiom Indiana said yesterday. tihe only thing that we are investigating is the et. time ftct. the nction of the parties. and the usotivo is a matter oC no consideration. Where an aetis a crime. and a party commits that crime. you do not have to investigate the motive. When a man cnuniits homicide. the law attaches to him tbe niotive and makes it murder. because it presnnes malice. When a man takes goods that do not belong to hiun. surreptitiosly. the law presumes tite motive. and says it is theft. The act itself carries wilh it the nmtivoe and the condetunatits of the law. So it is here. Where the legislator. acting in his capacity as an elector. acts through the inflteneo.of bribery. we do tot stop to inquire wahat motivo he had in casting hiovoto. Whether lie cast it as a patriot. or whether lie cast it in order to have a fried tie the Sente. is a niatter of no moment.
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 53 | Mr. NORWOOD | Unknown | NORWOOD | Unknown | M | 1,129 | 1,171 | 03181873.txt | 2,792 | 503 |
430,000,937 | Will it interrant the Senator if I try to understand hini at that point ? Mr. NaOI)lVOOD. Not at all.
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 54 | Mr. CONKLING | Unknown | CONKLING | Unknown | M | 1,172 | 1,174 | 03181873.txt | 101 | 20 |
430,000,938 | In the shapo in which he is now presenting the question. is tho act inqoired into there the bribe or the vote I The Senator says if a mtiss commits homieids or a theft. we do not inquire into the motive. but into the act. atrid. if a moan is guilty of bribery. the law relieves its of inquiring into the motive of the bribe. Now. I say. applying that to his argumont here. are we now inquiring into time set of the hrihe or into the act of the vote ?
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 55 | Mr. CONKLING | Unknown | CONKLING | Unknown | M | 1,175 | 1,181 | 03181873.txt | 450 | 92 |
430,000,939 | Both.
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 56 | Mr. NORWOOD | Unknown | NORWOOD | Unknown | M | 1,182 | 1,182 | 03181873.txt | 5 | 1 |
430,000,940 | And if we are inquiring wholly or partly into the act of kite vote. can we consider the bribe except as furnishiug the motive of the act I AIr. NORWOO). We are inquiring. as I said. into both. if thie fact. is established that alegislator was hribod by Mr. CALDWELL. with a view to ilduce that legislator to east his vote for him. ad stubiequently. wheu tile clection camooff. that legislator cast his vote for
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 57 | Mr. CONKLING | Unknown | CONKLING | Unknown | M | 1,183 | 1,203 | 03181873.txt | 410 | 75 |
430,000,941 | WO do not stop to inquire into the motive. I say the law raises the motive. The at of bribery makes it a erine
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 58 | Air. CALWEWLL | Unknown | CALWEWLL | Unknown | M | 1,204 | 1,205 | 03181873.txt | 110 | 24 |
430,000,942 | Does the law raise the motive of the bribe or of the vote ? is the question I put to the Senator.
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 59 | Mr. COYKLING | Unknown | COYKLING | Unknown | M | 1,206 | 1,207 | 03181873.txt | 97 | 22 |
430,000,943 | Of the vote. The inducement to the vote. in other words. is the bribe paid to secure the vote.
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 60 | Mr. NORWOOD | Unknown | NORWOOD | Unknown | M | 1,208 | 1,209 | 03181873.txt | 94 | 19 |
430,000,944 | Then I understand say friend to ainit at this point that the criterion is the motive of the vote which he says the bribe furnishes.
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 61 | Mr. CONKLING | Unknown | CONKLING | Unknown | M | 1,210 | 1,212 | 03181873.txt | 131 | 25 |
430,000,945 | The criterion of the vote!
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 62 | Mr. NORWOOD | Unknown | NORWOOD | Unknown | M | 1,213 | 1,213 | 03181873.txt | 26 | 5 |
430,000,946 | The criterion of our judgment at that point. I understand hire to admit. is the motive of the vote. and his argament is that the fact of the bribe supplies us with that motive.
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 63 | Mr. CONKLING | Unknown | CONKLING | Unknown | M | 1,214 | 1,216 | 03181873.txt | 176 | 34 |
430,000,947 | That I do not deny. bus I am simply asking the question whether in reality we are to investigate the motives of the voter or not.
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 64 | Mr. CONKLING | Unknown | CONKLING | Unknown | M | 1,218 | 1,220 | 03181873.txt | 129 | 26 |
430,000,948 | Not at all. We do not stop to investigate the motive of tho vote. We are to investigate the fact as to whether the legislator was bribed. and if. leing bribed. he. casts his vote. that is the end of the inquiry. and the law declares the act a crime.
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 65 | Mr. NORWOOD | Unknown | NORWOOD | Unknown | M | 1,221 | 1,224 | 03181873.txt | 249 | 50 |
430,000,949 | The law infers the motive.
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 66 | Mr. MORTON | Unknown | MORTON | Unknown | M | 1,225 | 1,225 | 03181873.txt | 26 | 5 |
430,000,950 | The law raises a presumption as to the motive.
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 67 | Mr. NORWOOD | Unknown | NORWOOD | Unknown | M | 1,226 | 1,226 | 03181873.txt | 46 | 9 |
430,000,951 | Just as it does in a ease of burglary where a man is killed.
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 68 | Mr. MORTON | Unknown | MORTON | Unknown | M | 1,227 | 1,228 | 03181873.txt | 60 | 14 |
430,000,952 | Just as it does in a case of homicide or a case of theft. there is no difference at all. and the bribery being a crime that vote is invalid. and if enough votes thus procured wore cast to secure the election of that Senator. that election is invalid. I forget the exact point I was diseussiug when interrupted by the Senator from New York. bt I believe it. was this: that it this dection cannot be investigated by the Senate. then a fraudulent election. an election secured by bribery. or an election secured by the most outrageous means that could be devised by hunmau ingenuity. it matters not what. if the views of henorable Senators here be correct. can never be investigated . an election thus secured must stand. it inust stand against reason . it must stand against morality i it must stand against the interest and the perpetuity of good government. We are left ramediless if we cannot investigate it. What can the State do that has been thus prostituted. and is rep. resented hero by a corrupt inas? She has no power. Her people in convention assembled. in their majesty and sovereignty. are without remedy. If theposition of the opposition be correct. we have nothing to do but to submit. sit here. nd shake our automatic wooden beads. and say to that State. "There is no remedy. it is beyotet our power. it is beyond your power." Let corruption run riot. let elections be carried by fraud. let States be trodden upon and trampled ii the dust. and yet. sticking in the bark. and upon the letter of theConstitation. the Senate has no power. and the people are reiediless. Is that lawIv Is that the spirit of the Constitution? When yon take away from the Constitution its spirit. you take away its life. 1When you take away that essence by which it lives. there is nothing left that is worth the having. Whon you say to the people of this country that the Senate of the United States is bound by the letter of thatConstitution. and its vital spark is gone. you might as well de clare to then that the vital power of the Government is gone with it. What an absurd conclusion. if I may say so. with all dae respect and deference to those who oppose me. is it to say that whore iuanifhstly. openly. wickedly a Sateo has been alefrauded in the manner I have supposed. there is no remedy. no helping hand to save. Let us illustrate. I will seppose a state of facts. without comnienting upon the facts or assuming that they are true. We will asseme rhatin the case of Mr. CA DWrv Ls. after the election had occurred. an investigation had been ordered by the legislatur. and it had turned out that that legislature had been corrupted to the extent (for that is sufficient) of securing his election. that he han been a party to it. that the parties who had been bribed had been convicted of bribery. and that we had the certified records of the courts here. rlhwiog that they had been so convicted. and a useioral friom the viole body of the people of Kansas protesting against his adusission. aI tieipating the tinm wlieu Mr. CALDWELI would niake application for seat in the Senate. What wud the Senate say? What weuld be its decision ? If we are to be governed by the jndginent of those who sy that we cannot look into the corrupt acts of the electors of a Senator. I ask in the name of justice. what would b the result in a ease of that sort ? The answer. I suppose. must be. " We are without power. you are remediless. there is nothing in the Constitution that gives us the right to investigate that nmatter. and we are boud to adiit him here and hold him as a member of this body. unless we exercise the power of expelsien." Now. see what an absurdity arises. Yoa have the power. you say. te expel such a member. one thus elected. but you have not the power to keep him out of Iis seat. and therefore you have to admit him to his seat. and then expel him for the bribery. That is the logical sequence of the argument on the other side. Yon cauot keep him out of his scat on account of the bribery. you can only expel him as a personal punishment . but you cannot expel until you admit himn. and while yon cannot prevent him f.om taking Isis seat. you will adrit him to get rid of him by expuls1011.
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 69 | Mr. NORWOOD | Unknown | NORWOOD | Unknown | M | 1,229 | 1,292 | 03181873.txt | 4,203 | 783 |
430,000,953 | If I do not disturb the Sonator. I should like to ask him a question at that point.
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 70 | Mr. CON KIANG | CON | KIANG | Unknown | M | 1,293 | 1,295 | 03181873.txt | 83 | 18 |
430,000,954 | Certainly.
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 71 | Mr. NORWOOD | Unknown | NORWOOD | Unknown | M | 1,296 | 1,296 | 03181873.txt | 10 | 1 |
430,000,955 | May I suppose the ease of a nn convicted of pcjury. or of murder. or of larceny. after his choice to the Senate. cooning here and applying. the people of his State sending with him a pitition as numerously signed as the population of the State. crying out against the disgrace. could we say he was not cleated. or should we be mipelled to open the doors anui then drive him out ? And if we nmust adiit him first and expel him afterward. is not the absurdity as great in the one case as ir the other ?
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 72 | Mr. CONKLING | Unknown | CONKLING | Unknown | M | 1,297 | 1,304 | 03181873.txt | 500 | 99 |
430,000,956 | I was only presenting what I consider the logical sequences of the position of the other side. The consequences are with theni. not with nic. I may that. taling the view of this question that they do. from their standpoint. yon are driven inevitably to the position that when a man presents himself. that yon admit would inot be a worthy member of this body. yet must aclunit bite to a seat in this body and then expel him bc.uso he is not a worthy member. The consequences are iot with me. It is not niy logic. Mr. President. I have but a few words iiore to say. I have already spoken much longer than I intended. I yield to no man on this floor in ny advocacy of State rights. Bet a few days ago. when the question of Louisiana was before the Senate. it would have rejoiced my heart ald I would have leaped forward with alacrity. if I could have fennel any way by which I could oxted a helping hand to the people of that State. but. sir. I felt manacled and fettered by the oath whieh I took when I canio into this body to support the nOstitution of the United States. My construction of that Constitution is simply this: that in the usanagement of a State legislatur. in the setting asp or the tearing down. in the mulcig or the marring ot a State legisIsatur. the Congress of the United States has mo tower and no coutrol. and hence. when that question came oii. I voted against the bill. because that bill assumed that the legislature which bad beeu wrongfully established in that State should be controlled by an act of Congress. I yield to none. not even to tie honorable Senators from New Jersey and from Delaware. in my devotion to State rights. but wheu I see the consequences that are to follow. which must resglt in the trampling of a State in the dust. which must result in a people being misrepresented here by a mau who has not been elected by their voice. who is not their choice. who has prostituted their agent. who has secured his seat here by briberyI say it is not only in the interest of State rights. but i. is in the interest of the perpetuity of our rapnblican Government that the Senate should lay its baud upon that mai. andl say to him. "You shalt not coiaue within the preeiiets of this chamber." and. if seated here. he should be expelled. On the other hand. is I said in the beginning of my remarks. I see dangers to the Senate if we pursue the other course. What would this body become if we are to sit. here. taking the illustration I gave awhile ago. and allow Senatorselect to become uisemubers of this body whes they come tainted. polluted. corrupted. andeorraptiugl Shall they be alloweal to sit here as the peers of honorable nen who have securoed their election by honorable means. and who are. in truth. the choice of their States? What becomes of the dignity of the United States Senate? What becomes of its purity ? What becomes of its bonor ? What becomes of the safety of the people of this country if its laws are to be passed by criminals? If you once pass power into the iands of such men. I ask Senators who are the advocates of State rights. how hug will those States be protected ? How long will it be before those very men will lay their mailed hands upon the States. and ebvert and delstroy all State rights ? It may be said that if. wo pursue this. course we are depriving the States of representation in this body. I do not see how that follows. If a seat is vacated. the same reslelt follows as if a party is expelled from this body. The State holds another election. or. if the legislature is nob in session. the governor mrakes an appoiaint it until the legislature meets. What matters it. therefore. so far] is State rights are concerued. whether we expel amciber or whether we vacate his seat ? We are iot depriving the State of rights in either ease. We are in the one case. or in both eases. saying to that State. "When you send a member here who is qualified to sit in this body--when you send a member here who will not sell his vote for a bribehe shall be entitled to his scat. but. until yea do. yos are iot staudiriglipoc1 the same platform of equality witlh the other States in this Union. and we will not consent that the Senate of the United States shall be thus degraded."
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 73 | Mr. NORWOOD | Unknown | NORWOOD | Unknown | M | 1,305 | 1,370 | 03181873.txt | 4,242 | 797 |
430,000,957 | Mr. President. as I desire to be as brief as possible. I hope I may not be interrupted in the course of my remorarks. I do nor expeet to shed asy new light on this question . and uty only apology for speaking is that I feel it to be a duty I owe myself. for. sir. we cainot conceal the fact thtc ier. CALDWRL is act the only Senator on trial todaythe whole Seiate is oi trial. The qeestion is not simply whether CaLDW Lx is guilty. but whether the Senate has the intelliecnce and the firmness to pronounce his guilt if guilty ho be. And iTauy Senator. after looking at this testimony. shall believe him guilty and feel it to be his duty so to vote. there secinsto ie a necessit. y that be shousd state tre reasos of his belief. It is anast iesponsible step to declare a Sonatorguilty of high crimes and sisdenmaiors. to declare that he procured his seat by corrupt ud corrupting useais. and he who does so should be able to state hy it is that he rendeys it verdict of " guilty." Now. Mr. 1resident. feeling the responsibility that rests upon each one of us in this investigation. I have c..reflilly renJ every word of the testimony. I have read ii in the retiracy of my library. with liy pencil in nyhand. determined to the best of my ability to form a correct judgment upon it. It has made an ipression upon lily mind that I do not think is likely to be removed. [cannot go into the testimony in detail to show why it is that I have arrived at that conclsion . to do that would take up more time than is allotted to me to speak . but I may sy. iu general terms. that I cannot avoid the conviction that the election of Mr. CALDWELL was thoroughly corrapt . not that there was bribery of one member of the legislature alone. bat that there was. directly or indirectly. bribery of more nmen than constituted his majority. I do not pretend that I can name the men. nor do I believe that in ny suhil ease as this the Senate ever will be able to name the imon. The Senate must act. as was said yesterday by my friend from Deiaware. upon the best evidence that the nature of the case admits. and in this case the only wonder with me is that the evidence is as clear and conclusive as it is. Never before in any such case--and I have been in the investigation of soe of theninever before has testimony been so utterly damning as this. Why. Mr. President. let us look at it a little. In 1871 there was to be an election for Senator in the State of Kansas. There was then a gentleman. nam1ed AsXAiNIon CALDWnLr. living in the city of Leavenworth. who had been knowi as what is familiarly called a business man. that is. he had been a Covernment contraotora contractor to carry provisions and Anpliis across tie plains to Indians and to our military postsand iu the pursuit of that occupation. a perfectly honorable one. he had aecunhilated a large fortune. but he had not the least political standing above that of any other intelligent elector of Kansas. There was nothing in his political status. nothing in his intellectual ability. nothing in his education. nothing in any public service he had ever rendered. that woi make the people of Kansas thinc for one noment of ALFXANsEIr CALDWELL as their representative in the Senate of the United States. and had he been a poor man there would not have been. from one end of the State to the other. one man who wold have dreamed of his ever holding at seat in this body. Yet. sir. that obscure geintleloan grew. in a few weeks time. to be the most formidable candidate before the Kansas legislature. With no supporters at first. he soon acquired such support that other eandidates were compelled to give way. aind in the end he was elected to this body by at largo majority. Such things as that are not in the ordinary course of himnan events. and we naturally look around to see how it was that this phenomenon occurred. A seat in the Senate of the United States has bceme in this country an object of ambition second to but one. and pcrhaps not second to thaitthe Presidency. The struggle tfor a seat in this body among the ambitionus and able men of the country everywhere is b struggle that sometimes convulses t State and attracts universal artcntion throughout the length and breadth of the Republic. But. sir. here we find the prominent men of the State of Kansas either siailing aside imost nysteriously or boiton to death iu the race. mu a Goveirnieut contractor. who had never figured even in a town meeting. so far as we know. all at once elevated to the highest place iu the roll of candidacy. and finally elected. When we look into the evidence embodied in this report. we son discover a clew to this mysterious event. In the first place we lind tiat a conference was bold in the city of Leaviiiworth. where Mr. CALlWELL resided. and that the result of the conference was that Ie shnihl bea candidate. and that then. in Order to bring him out. apale was signed reqnesting him to ho a candidate. But. sir. that laper. signed by t believe about two hundred of the citizens of Leavenworth. would have had but slight effect in promotiig his election. Some other and more potent agency than that wis required . and what do we find ? Why. sir. one of the first things is the expenditure of large sums of money upon a newspaper of that city. in order to circeulate it throughout Kansas. filled with articles advocating the election of
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 74 | Mr. THURMAN | Unknown | THURMAN | Unknown | M | 1,371 | 1,463 | 03181873.txt | 5,380 | 996 |
430,000,958 | I do not complain of that. That was perhaps legitiniate . that was perhaps an admissible use of money. Although there might be some indelicacy in creating a factitious reputation for ones selt. although there are some who do "ot tlik that that is precisely the way to acquire that standing which makes people turn their eyes toward t man and say "We want him for our Senator." I shall pass that by and call it. if you please. a legal but sin indelicate use of nmiey. And I mention it for no ither reatso than to slow that nioney was to be need. that money was relied upon to achieve sue. ces.48 But. sir. we soon come to something more important than that. There was another citizen of the city of Leavenworth. a man who had been governor of the State. aman who in previous elections had been a candidate for the Senate of the United States. a maii of in.fluence in Leavenworth. and of extensive acquaiatanec and influence throughout the State. and that man was Thomas Carney. Now. Sir. when we touch Thomas Carney. we Iregia to see inore clearly the agency. tie means. by which Mr. CALIW7i]itL was to be elected to the Senate of the United States. A solemn bargain is made with Tlinas Carney. and not left to parol. but reduced to writing. by which. for the sum of t5.000 to bo paid to hisi $10.000 tortaii aund 5.000 cntimgent On the election of CALDWELL. Mr. Carney agrees. and solciinly pledgeshimself in writing. that he wilt not be a candidate. And. sir. more than that. there was a separate article. not committed to writing. that he should ass all his power aid idl his iuilanee to elect Mr. C.ALDWIrLL . and. sir. he felhlled hath artich s to the letter. lie did not beconie at candidate. and he did go to Topeka. the seat of governmont. and. from first to last. per fa at sufas. do all lie coalsi to elect CALDWELL. He earned his $15.000 if money could be earned by such a service. But. sir. that is not all. We see now that money is to be used .we get a glimpse of the nmans by which it is expected that this obscure gentleman is to be elevated to a seat in the Seuato of the United States. It begins with $5.000 to a newspaper and $15.000 to Carney. Bit. sir. there was another competitor. one Sidney Clarke. a gentleman not nnknown to the people of Kansas. for he had represented them. and. I believe. at that very momnt was their Represeetativo in the House of Representatives. in Congress--elected by the whole State. a gentleman known to that people and of great influeieo among them. Ho was a candidate too. Well. sir. what disposition was mlade of Mr. Sidney Clarke I He continued a candidate until the first vetoe was given. until the houses voted separately. and what then ? Why. sir. a bargain is made with him that his expenses are to be paid. and he is to withdraw from the contest. and. by the strangest arithinetic in the world. his expenses are estimated at froii twelve to fiftee thonsand dollars. But. sir. that is not all. We find the declaration of Mr. CALDWELL that he will be elected to the Senate if it costs him a quarter of a ilillion dollars.
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 75 | Mir. CALDWEL | Unknown | CALDWEL | Unknown | M | 1,464 | 1,513 | 03181873.txt | 3,078 | 570 |
430,000,959 | Where does the Senator find that ?
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 76 | Mr. CARPENTER | Unknown | CARPENTER | Unknown | M | 1,514 | 1,514 | 03181873.txt | 34 | 7 |
430,000,960 | In Mr. Carnoys testimony.
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 77 | Mr. THURMAN | Unknown | THURMAN | Unknown | M | 1,515 | 1,515 | 03181873.txt | 25 | 4 |
430,000,961 | 0 !
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 78 | Mr. CARPENTER | Unknown | CARPENTER | Unknown | M | 1,516 | 1,516 | 03181873.txt | 3 | 2 |
430,000,962 | The Senator says "0 !1 as if no credit is to be attached to the testimony of tht witness. Well. sir. I am not at all in love with that witness. not the least in the world. no more than the Senator is in love with him. but I do find that this Committee on Privileges and Elections. so far as I cai see. unnaniously reported iost material facts in this ease upon the testimony of Thomas Caricy.
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 79 | Mr. THURMAN | Unknown | THURMAN | Unknown | M | 1,517 | 1,523 | 03181873.txt | 392 | 78 |
430,000,963 | My friend will allow me to say that. so far as I kii concerned. I reported no fact on the testimony of Mr..Carney.
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 80 | Mr. CARPENTER | Unknown | CARPENTER | Unknown | M | 1,524 | 1,525 | 03181873.txt | 114 | 23 |
430,000,964 | Well. sir. I cannot help it . I aol obliged to taklo tho report as I fiud it. I find no dissenting report aboit the facts. the only dissent I id is as to the eonclusios of law upon those facts.
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 81 | Mr. THURMAN | Unknown | THURMAN | Unknown | M | 1,526 | 1,528 | 03181873.txt | 193 | 41 |
430,000,965 | I know my friend does not wish to inisreprosent me. and lie is doing it now. unintentionally.
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 82 | Mr. CARPENTER | Unknown | CARPENTER | Unknown | M | 1,529 | 1,530 | 03181873.txt | 93 | 17 |
430,000,966 | It is unintentionally if I amr doing it.
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 83 | Mr. THURMAN | Unknown | THURMAN | Unknown | M | 1,531 | 1,531 | 03181873.txt | 40 | 8 |
430,000,967 | I stated. on tie first opportunity I had in the Senate oi that subject. that I dissented totally from the findings of the committee in matters of fact. iiul the chairman of tho committco confirmed that statement. that I dissented all the way through on the findings of fact. I did not take the time. because I had it not. to write a dissenting report. I was engaged in preparing the report on the Louisiana ease. which was going o at the same time iii the conmitteo. and which took all my iio day and night. and for that reason I was unable to prepare a minority report. but every member of the committee knows that I diddisseunt entirely from the findings of faet. as I stated who the matter was first reached in the Senate.
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 84 | Mr. CARPENTER | Unknown | CARPENTER | Unknown | M | 1,532 | 1,542 | 03181873.txt | 725 | 136 |
430,000,968 | I was speaking of the report. and I said that I found in it ti dissent. Now the Sniatorsays that lie did dissent. and expressed his dissent in the Senate. Doubtless that is so. but it is the first tine I ever heard ofit. Therefore he is right. anudI an right. In the report. ol which wu are to act. which we take to our rooils. ob icih we read and which we study. I fiud fact after fact of the gravest importance found upon tha testimony of Thomas Carney by our commitee. But. sir. Thomas Carney is not an uncorroborated. witness. Te stands corroborated so inch that it will take more argiimont. I think. than has yet been adduced to shako his testimony i its material points. Did he receive $15.000 for standing aside and aiding CALDW LL? CAaLvnWtL says sO himself in his written paper hooded to the committee. Did CALIWELL Say to Carney that that electio had cost him from fifty to sixty or seventyfive thousand dollars? He said the santo thing to two othor witnosses. at least. who are not impeached. and there Carny stands corroborated. But. sir. that is not all. le stands corroborated in regard to the use of money by various other witnesses who testify to partieular instances. And so. Mr. President. bad mat as be is. utterly nnorthy of our respect. you cannot say that lis testimniiy is to be thrown aside. No. sir. you have not made against him the mld case for throwing a bad mans testioiony aside. that it is not corroborated. You have not proved him guilty Of perjury in a single instane.. so that you may say of himn falss in ne. falsas ill onvsilss. and therefore he is not to be believed at all unless corroborated. You have not convicted him of perjury in aiiy one single instance. so that lie could be found guilty by a jury if le were on trial ander am indictment.
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 85 | Mr. THURMAN | Unknown | THURMAN | Unknown | M | 1,543 | 1,570 | 03181873.txt | 1,783 | 330 |
430,000,969 | My friend will pardon me for saying that he has not been convicted. bat lie is enmtradicted by more than two witnesses on the sanile point s.3veral times in the testimony taken.
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 86 | Mr. CARPENTER | Unknown | CARPENTER | Unknown | M | 1,571 | 1,573 | 03181873.txt | 177 | 32 |
430,000,970 | Ho is corroboratel by more.
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 87 | Mr. MORTON | Unknown | MORTON | Unknown | M | 1,574 | 1,574 | 03181873.txt | 27 | 5 |
430,000,971 | Although I requested when I got up hat I might not be interrupted. as I wanted to speak briefly. I know the laudable habit of the Scaute of turning this hiall into a ehanibr f)r ronvirsation and dialogue. of putting a person throgh the loager and shorter catechism every time he gets up to debate a iquestion. and therefore I believe I will not complain. and I will withdraw my request that I may be allov qd to proceed without interruption. But. Mr. President. that is not all. Here is testimony proving. if the witnesses are to be credited. the purchase of the vote of a inau named Bayers. proved by Mr. CALDWELTJS own confession. of the pnrchase of a man named Legate. of giving a thousand dollars for his vote to a man named Crocker. and then there is that most mysterions transaction. and not so mysterious either. in view of the testimony. about the seven Doniplian membe rs.and the missing 67.000. Mr. President. it is utterly impossible to shut our eyes to the facts. There was a gentleman who haid declared that he would be elected although it should cost a sae of money that would gladden tie hearts of a dozen Senators here if they ownedit iii equal parts. Here is a gentlemen who suddenly springs up into inpotareo in this way. and who confesses that his election has cost him frtr sixty to 9eventylive thousand dollars. and against whom are proved these particular instances of bribery and the corrupt use of money. and yet Senators hesitate and say. " Why we want proof of so mauy distincteases of bribery. enougl to have controlled the clectioa. and. until thobribed imen can be namued. the proof is iusulliec t. Mr. President. if you do not expel a Senator for bribery. or declare his election void for bribery. until you get stronger testimony than is in this case. the power to expel and the power to j edge of elections might is well be stricken out of the Constitution. Now. sirt. [ am not troubled at all in this ease with the question. what would be our dety if there were a single case of bribery lroved and nothing snore. a Single case of bribery where the majority was large. I cannot resist the conviotion. I cannot shut my eyes to the Ihet that Mr. CALDErLL bought his way through that legislature ito lie Sunate of the United Stales. and threure the question is plainly presented. is an election which is procured by bribery a valid or a void election ? Is it the law of this land. is it the Conistitition tuder which we live. that a man can buy a seat iu the Senate of the United States I That is the question. The question is whether you shall make proclamation to the leople of the United States that seats in the Senate are merchandise. and that the manl who has the longest purse getsthe goods. And now it is said that it is the law of this land that. no matter tro plain and flagrant the bribery may be. although it were confIssed apon the record. although the testinoruy seas sneli as to convince beyond all reasonable doubt. nay. though there should 1) no doubt at all. yet tho eetion is a valid election. That is tie doctrine. Why a valid election I Tecause. as we are told. uwe cannot look into the motives of the members of the legislaturo who cast their votes. If every man of them asho voted for ALEXAND:iR CaL)WELL were to cone before the Senate at its bar. and swear that he ilid so vote for a money consideration. ard CALD)WL.rL should stand here and say. " I amliiit it. now what can yon do f" tie Senate of the United States would have to reply. " 0. we caianit iimpnto to these gentlemen that they were gailty of being bribed . wo cannot impu e corruption to them . they are members of a State legislature . State rights prohibit our imputing anlything like criie to tliei . we cannot do that at all . and atl heugh thy staid at .ir bar holdirg up their hands and pleading guilty. and their elected ma pleads guilty too. the election is nevertheless perfectly valid. anl all tire Senate cal do is to expel the iian if tv wthirds are found voting to expel him !" Mr. President. before I cont to such a conclusion as thal.. I shall have to hear stronger argunents than I have yet heard. I admit that there is dangerand that is the only thing that irakes me falter ini my coelusiontere is dinger that the power of a ilcjority of the Senate to declare an clectio void aty be abused. I kliow that. when party spirit runs high. acts of injustie are done to a. xinority. and I h not underrate that itrger at all. Bit. Sir. oil the other hand is a danger that is or t appalling than ithat. I canot conceal from myself that if there were not corruption in society itself. no sch transicetioni as thrt election of Mr.CsLniWieLL coild ever have taken place. it is because corruption threatens to permeate t . xommuity. it is bcause tlhe use a rd the illegal iran of iioney in elections is becoming the rule aind not tie xceputil. aud that too many peiople rim stopping thou acars and Shutting their eyes to tie fact of how their elections are carried. anil too Often tacitly saying that all is fair ix politicsit is because of this corruption thatlnenaces the whole bodypolitic of the country. th t such tl electioo as trat. of ALEIXANDER CALWELL ever could iate occurred . and now. if the Seiate of the United States shill Say to the country. This thing is legitinmte. we inake proclaiation to ill adventurers tlirt they may buy a legislature at their will. rnd we will not toli the election to be void ." if you Say t hat. you will have done xore. Seiatois. to overthrow purity in the Governaeirt. nore to overthrow the power of repiblican institutions more wrong to the people. and mioere wrong to the Government than ever will he perpetrated by a l aless nmajority in this ehauber turning out without cruisc a hember of the ciiinority. The arass of the people. thalk HIeacvenx. are yet pure. 1 beseech you. Senattrs. to aid themr and not the corriptionists. But. Mr. President. what is th legel argairout in tire case? To my liiid it. is in a very narrow compass. I agree that it. is to bodoteriinc by the CorisCtitUtioc. I to not say that if there were iothig in the Conrutitrition oii the sujuect if (ir beintg tiLe .juiges of the elections. qualiticatiins. in(i retUrs c otis r nmembters. vie weuld h ave no psoter of decisio upoi these ruatters. I think. witi Chief Justice Sha w. and I do not see how anybody can thiik otlerivise. that that is an inherent power. ail that. in the absence of express grant. we should insert to the inherent power ii order to exercise it. lint when there is an express power given to us. it is not admissible for us to rosort to implied powers. I say thereis ia inhrent power in the legislature to jxdgc of the election of its members.
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 88 | Mr. THURMAN | Unknown | THURMAN | Unknown | M | 1,575 | 1,691 | 03181873.txt | 6,711 | 1,240 |
430,000,972 | The authority relied on did not say so.
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 89 | Mr. BAYARD | Unknown | BAYARD | Unknown | M | 1,692 | 1,692 | 03181873.txt | 39 | 8 |
430,000,973 | If he did not he ought to have said so. that must be so. But when there is an express power given. then. I say. you do not look to implied or inherent powers. you go to the express power. and I go to thie express power to ind the authority for the resolutii. of oar couririttee. Wiat is that express posert It is feund in Article I. section 5. paragraph 1. of the Constitution: Each Loise strall be the judge f the elections. returns. and qualifications of its owe iniciubers. There is the express power. Nosw. sir. I have first to say to iry friend from Delaware that it the power to judge. of the elections includes the power which I contend for. then thers is no violation of State rights in exercising it. for it is expressly delegated to rus. It cannot. be r violation of Stato rights to exercise it power that the Constitution confers upon us. Ya unirght just as well say that it was .x violatiou of State rights for us to levy taxes or to declare war.
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 90 | Mr. THURMAN | Unknown | THURMAN | Unknown | M | 1,693 | 1,707 | 03181873.txt | 958 | 183 |
430,000,974 | I did not say that.
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 91 | Mr. B.IYARD | Unknown | B.IYARD | Unknown | M | 1,708 | 1,708 | 03181873.txt | 19 | 5 |
430,000,975 | I Know iy friend is too able a lawyer to ever say that. The question is aquestion of the interpretation of the Constituion. If theConstitntiex confers the power on us. there is no violation of Siteat rights ii tIe resolution . if it does not confer the power upon us1 we do not possess it . that is all there is of it. So that the questin is not cue of State rights at alt. but is simply a iiquestion of the interpretation of the Federal ConAstitutia. Noy. is this power delegated ? Ix the hinst place I have to reixark that you find no such power in the Articles of Confederation. Why net ? Bheause the nmbers of the Congress of the Confederation were in fact. whatever you may call theni in namxe. oibassalors of tile different colonies. or States. Each of thera deriveil his whole power froni the State that appointed him. He was nor appointed inder tiny general constitution for the whole country. ttL he wits the delegato ciose by the State. and the State aeno hail the right to inquire whether lie was properly apprintcd or whether he should retain his seat. and the State had the power to turn him ut at any time. to rescind his appointment at any time. and emnpel him to leave the Continruxtal Congress. Therefore you fiud no such power in the Articles of Confederation. Bit that is not the case now. We have a Constitution. and the Senate exists by virte of the Constitution . and the Constitition declares how the Senate shrll be constituted. and what shall be its ptovers . rnd axong them is the power to j nge of the elections. qualifications. an. returns of its mcmbers. Now. Mr. President. eark it. there is no question as to what is ment by " qualifications." We know that those are the qualifioatioisspeceileid in the Constitution itself. urd that you cal sliperradd no other qualifieation. There is no difficulty. either. about the " returns." What shall be the retaris is a naatter to be determiud by law. aind the lax iteclires what shll ie the returns. what they shall corsin. and what they shall show . that is all matter of law . ancl we decide upo their face whether they are iil due lbrm and iir compliance with law. Bt then. sir. conies the question of the election. We are to ie tIe jndgo of the " election." What is meant hy that? lIx the first place. mark it that the word is without limitation. It does not say you shall be the judge of the election qsoad tlhis or quoad that. yiu shall be the judge to tire etent of finding whether the eleetion was ieh[ on the right day. or whether it was held by a body that coustitxtld a valid legislature. or wirether there was a mnjoriy. and you shall be judge of nothing else. It pits no limitation on your power to judge of the election. It is a perfectly unlimited power to judge. an is therefire it power to hold tre election voil for aily cause that. according to law anl reason and consistency with our Constitutin. sakes ar election voirl. But. sir. that is not all. The power given to the Senate is precisely the same as the power givem to the House of Representatives. It is not given ill i sixihar paragraiph . it is given in the sa1e ixciaigraph. The very Same words tliat Uinfur the liwer ipon the Soxate cociir tie power upon the hlouso. Has there been any ome hero bold enough to deny that it is conrrtent for the House of Representatives to unseat a ixniber upon proof that ic obtained his electio by bribery? No one has done that. But when you stay that the House has that power. you must say t re sano thing of the Senate. for the srame words that give the power to the House give it to the Senate. There is not one Word in thin Constitution that iakes any difference. Thre Soeator front Now Jersey [Mr. S.iutrox] atteinipted to rind a difthree. and called our atteition to the fact that tihe clause which provides for the election of Sonators was ix these words: The Sonrate r tl Unlited States shal be composed of two Senators frein each Sate. ehctso by the tegixlure thereof. And ite dwelt. upon that word closen." and said that all we coul irquire about was. whrether there ws alawfml legislature and whether it. mIs ni choice. atnl that we could go rio further. That I inay not iiistate irin. I read his very words: fho tisnqeatiu that coes rp. therefre. in every- sue of these . cses. is. is it the teghiatetof nin State 5 n1 the m tt qirestio i. did tleyctoruse? aand further uterll iat tico is i i]tiestioll. That is the proposition. Well. sir. it is substantially the same psroposition maintained by every one of the Senators who have spoken against the report of the committee. Cover it up in words if you please. it all comes to that. It is suibstantially the same propositionthat you can only inquire. was there a legislature. and did it choose I Well. now. inight you not with just as much propriety under this clause about the election of niembers of the Hose of Representatives say that the only inquiry is. were the persons who chose. the people of the State. and did they choose ? The language. utatis tnfusadia. is exactly the saute. The language in regard to mnmbcrs of the House of Representatives is thatThe House of Repreontatives shall be composed of members chosenJust the sane word. "chosen "every second year by the people of te several States. And therefore you night with just as much propriety say in the Rouse of Ropresentatives the only question is whether the men who voted for this member were the people of his State. by which is meant the qualified electors of that State. and did they choose him. And if they did choose him. no tisster how corrupt worn their metives . no matter how many of them were bribed. no matter though ie bought his 8emt there. still. you can no further go. They are the people. they have chosen. and there is an end of the matter. You cas say that just as well in the one ease as you can in the other. But. Mr. President. let us go a little further than that. What is this language in the Constitution? "Each House shell be the judge oe the elctiCions." &c. Was that a term unknown to the Inw. "jugo of the electiuns of its own members ?" No. sir . it was knuow long before this Govenment had an existence. It was kno%%n long before this continent was discovered. It was a term known to the law of that land frun which we derive the inostofouriustitutious. and byfar tte greater part of our law. long hefore Christopher Columbus was born. "Judge of the election of is own members" is a term as olt as tite British Parliament. What does it signify if it does not moan that the House may hold an election to he void if it wns obtained by bribery? When our forefathers put that language in the Constitintion of the United States. they know what it was for a legislative body to be the judge of the election of its own members. and they ktew that. necording to parliamentary law. in judging of tioeleetion of a iniuber oft he Hlonse of Commons. if it were found that Ita was etcted by bribery. it was bold that his election was void. The knew that in the cntstitutiot of every American State then in existence. for those States proexisted the Federal Constitution. there was a similar provision and a sim ilar eotstruetion post upon it.
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 92 | Mr. THURMAN | Unknown | THURMAN | Unknown | M | 1,709 | 1,828 | 03181873.txt | 7,178 | 1,325 |
430,000,976 | My friend will pardon me. I believe I hali his permission to interrupt him. Mr. T£HUIRMAN. Once every ten minutes.
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 93 | Mr. CARPENTER | Unknown | CARPENTER | Unknown | M | 1,829 | 1,831 | 03181873.txt | 114 | 20 |
430,000,977 | I understand the Senator to maintahi that the power of the Setato in judging of the election of its noumtors is precisely tite sattto us the pmvr of the House in judging of the election of its ntembers. Atn Iright ? air. T1 URMAN. Under the same clause.
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 94 | Mr. CAIPENTER | Unknown | CAIPENTER | Unknown | M | 1,832 | 1,836 | 03181873.txt | 253 | 48 |
430,000,978 | It is cuncdcd en all hauds that the House may inquire ilito the (ptalifications of the elector voting for a eaulidate claiming a seat. Does the Setnator maintain that the eniate can inquire into the qualifications of the electorthat is. the mnensber of a logislatureto hold his scat and veto for a Senator?
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 95 | Mr. CARPENTER | Unknown | CARPENTER | Unknown | M | 1,837 | 1,841 | 03181873.txt | 306 | 53 |
430,000,979 | The Senator has only anticipated me. I bad not forgotten that that inquiry would he put. I believe I answered it the other day. Tie Senator probably did not hear it. or it attracted his attention so little tlat lie paid no attention to it.
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 96 | Mr. THURMAN | Unknown | THURMAN | Unknown | M | 1,842 | 1,845 | 03181873.txt | 239 | 45 |
430,000,980 | I wonld like to hear the answer now.
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 97 | ir. CARPENTER | Unknown | CARPENTER | Unknown | M | 1,846 | 1,846 | 03181873.txt | 36 | 8 |
430,000,981 | The answer is very plain and perfect. The decision of an inspector of election. eitting to receive votes for a member of the House of Representatives. extends how fart It extends to the question of whether or not a man is a legal voter. In some States it does uot go that far. for they have prohibited that inquiry in Alabauma. but that is as far as it extends in any of the Statesto inquire whet her a tan is ]egaliy entitled to vote. That decision of that judge or inspeeter is not coetlsive and fina. It is sot conclusive and final iu the State. for if lie decides erroneouslyif he rejects the vote of a mas who is entited to votehe is liable to action and to pay dam.oges. although lie acted in the most perfect goodfaith. That is the law in Ohio. and I am sure it is in many biter States. It is not. therefore. conclusive its the courts of his owit State. and is not sotclusivo in that highest and only court which can try the right of a member to a seat to the House of Representatives of Coigress. But" that is not tite case with a State legislature. because the State constitution. which we respect. and which our Cotstitution does not authorize is to overthrow. says tlnt each house of the general assembly shall be the judge of the elections. qualifications. and returns of its members.
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 98 | ir.THURMAN | Unknown | THURMAN | Unknown | M | 1,847 | 1,866 | 03181873.txt | 1,296 | 242 |
430,000,982 | Has that constitution any more power titan the common law. if it is against the Constitution of the United States ?
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 99 | Mr. HAMILTON. of Marylad | Unknown | HAMILTON | Marylad | M | 1,867 | 1,869 | 03181873.txt | 115 | 21 |
430,000,983 | It is not against the Constitution of the United States.
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 100 | Mr. THURMAN | Unknown | THURMAN | Unknown | M | 1,870 | 1,871 | 03181873.txt | 56 | 10 |
430,000,984 | Yon can inquire into it ?
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 101 | Mr. HAMILTON. of Mrylad | Unknown | HAMILTON | Mrylad | M | 1,872 | 1,872 | 03181873.txt | 25 | 6 |
430,000,985 | Iuquire into what I lMir. HAMii.rON. of Alarylaid. Itto the qualificationsofnsmembers of the legislaturo ofa StateI
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 102 | Mr. THiURMAN | Unknown | THIURMAN | Unknown | M | 1,873 | 1,875 | 03181873.txt | 115 | 16 |
430,000,986 | I say you cannot.
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 103 | Mr. THURMAN | Unknown | THURMAN | Unknown | M | 1,876 | 1,876 | 03181873.txt | 17 | 4 |
430,000,987 | I say so too.
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 104 | bir. HAMILTON. of Maryland | Unknown | HAMILTON | Maryland | M | 1,877 | 1,878 | 03181873.txt | 13 | 4 |
430,000,988 | Then the power is not the same in the two Houses. becauso we all concede that the House can inquire itto the qualifications of an elector.
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 105 | Mr. CARPENTER | Unknown | CARPENTER | Unknown | M | 1,879 | 1,881 | 03181873.txt | 138 | 26 |
430,000,989 | ThoSiuator understandsmeperfeetlywhll. What we inquire Iere is. was that i legislature? That we can inquire into just as the House call inquire whether the men who voted for a metber of Congress were the electors. If they were the legislature. then they are the electors of the Senator. but when you come to te question as to wltether they were the electors of the Senator. you come to a rule of evidence. and it is simply a rule of evidence that the decision of each house of the State legislature. made pursuant to its constitution. is conclusive on that question.
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 106 | Mr. T URIAN | T | URIAN | Unknown | M | 1,882 | 1,890 | 03181873.txt | 566 | 100 |
430,000,990 | Does the Senator mean that we may judge of them. hut are boed tojudge as they judge I Mr. TI-[URMAN. Tite Senator oaght not to put a question to me in that way. Ito is too good a lawyer to put a question iu that ad captandut way. If we ware on the stunip it would do. but we are not oil the stnp. The Senator knows very well that tlo rule of evidence in one case may be very different from the rule of evidence in the other. but the substance of the thing is precisely the saue.
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 107 | Mr. CARPENTER | Unknown | CARPENTER | Unknown | M | 1,891 | 1,898 | 03181873.txt | 478 | 99 |
430,000,991 | Suppose a Senator is elected by a najority of otto in a legislature. and ati offer is utado here to show that that one man. who turned the scale in the legislature. got his seat by bribery at tho polls?
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 108 | Mr. CARPENTER | Unknown | CARPENTER | Unknown | M | 1,899 | 1,902 | 03181873.txt | 202 | 40 |
430,000,992 | You cannot prove it. and nobody ever pretended that yots cotli a(d it does not uilitsto against iy argmout.
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 109 | Mr. THURMAY | Unknown | THURMAY | Unknown | M | 1,903 | 1,904 | 03181873.txt | 107 | 19 |
430,000,993 | Supposo he was not elected at all ?
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 110 | Air. STFlWAI | Unknown | STFLWAI | Unknown | M | 1,905 | 1,905 | 03181873.txt | 35 | 8 |
430,000,994 | Suppose lie was not. but was admitted by the body which had tle sole right to judge.
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 111 | Mr. TRURMAN | Unknown | TRURMAN | Unknown | M | 1,906 | 1,907 | 03181873.txt | 84 | 17 |
430,000,995 | May I inquire? Mr. TI[URMAN. Isupposeso.
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 112 | Mr. CONKLING | Unknown | CONKLING | Unknown | M | 1,908 | 1,909 | 03181873.txt | 40 | 6 |
430,000,996 | I simply want the authority for that proposition. I wait to know whether it is the Senators assertion. or whether there is any authority for it ?
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 113 | Mr. CONKLING | Unknown | CONKLING | Unknown | M | 1,910 | 1,912 | 03181873.txt | 145 | 27 |
430,000,997 | What proposition?
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 114 | Mr. THURMAN | Unknown | THURMAN | Unknown | M | 1,913 | 1,913 | 03181873.txt | 17 | 2 |
430,000,998 | The proposition that we canot inquire whether tell miten in the legislature of Kansas were mere intruders and usurpers. with no certilicates at all.
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 115 | Mr. CONKLING | Unknown | CONKLING | Unknown | M | 1,914 | 1,916 | 03181873.txt | 148 | 24 |
430,000,999 | Air. Prsidnt. I am not the teacher of a common school. to instruct my friend the A. B C of the laow. lie knows just as well as I do. atd lie kuew just as well before he asked tle question as lie knows now. that when either branch of a State legislature has puietI uinio tite right of a tut11t to a seat in that legislature. WO have tne right to go ehotind that decisiot.
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 116 | ilr. THURMAN | Unknown | THURMAN | Unknown | M | 1,917 | 1,922 | 03181873.txt | 370 | 76 |
430,001,000 | Will the Senator allow me to make a suggestion right there ?
| S | "1873-03-18T00:00:00" | 117 | Mr. MORTON | Unknown | MORTON | Unknown | M | 1,923 | 1,924 | 03181873.txt | 60 | 12 |