1875. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. 53 

tor from Wisconsin, the late colleague of the present Senator, as the 

basis of my discussion of this case. · 

1\Ir. IIOWE. I understood the Senator to be arguing the proposition that if the returns from the six rejected parishes were added to 

the vote, take those returD.I:! as the Lynch board stated them, McEnery's 

majority would be larger instead of smaller. · Mr. WHYTE. I made no such argument. :Mr. HOWE. Then I misunderstood the Senator. 

Mr. WHYTE. Certainly the Senator from Wisconsin entirely misunderstood me. The only reference I made to those returns was to 

correct the Senator who yesterday stated what I am satisfied he 

believes to be true, that Kellogg was elected governor of Louisiana 

by tbe votes polled at that elect1011. Mr. HOWE. Yes, sir; I believe that. :Mr. WHYTE. He stated that yesterday; and when the Senator 

from Delaware referred to the count he said "Yes, but in that count 

you have thrown out six parishes;" and all for which I have referred 

t o the six parishes is to show that if we put into the DeFeriet count 

the count of the.Lyuch board a.s to those six parishes, the most favor-

:able count that can be made for Kellogg, it does not better Kellogg's ~ease but stillleavcs 1cEnery a large majority. 

Mr. HOWE. Well, .l\Ir. President, I admit if you only make the 'corrections which the returns from tho e six parishes require, still :McEnery will have a majority; but then I say you mu t make further , deductions because of retn~ns made from other parishes which are :said to have been forged and not true returns, and then again from • other returns made from other parishes you must make large dednc- . tiona because of stuffed ballot-boxes, the testimonv of which is here. 

I did not mention these other facts yesterday, because the Senator 

frol)l Delaware said very shrewdly and candidly that he preferred to · make his own speech, and I knew he could make his speech a great · deal better than I could make it, and I yielded at once. Mr. SAULSBURY. I hope the Senator from Wisconsin will pardon me if I now, in view of the detailed statement made by the Senator 

from Maryland aa to the true results of the election by the actual · count, ask him to withdraw the opinion which he expressed yesterday that Kellogg was elected. Mr. HOWE. No; I would rather repeat the statement, if it is all 

the same to my friends on the other side of the Chamber. 

Mr. WHYTE. 1\fr. Presiuent, of course the Senator from Wisconsin has the advantage of me; he has been here for a long-continued 

period and has listened to all the e debat-es. One of my friends in 

the rear says he is to bo pitied, and probably he is. [Laughter.] 

Probably the Senate is more to be pitied now, for I am taking up so much of its time. 

1\fr. HOWE. I was about to make a request of myfriend. I know 

he has no animosity against me, and::{, think he ought not to charge me with having listened to all the speeches that have been made on this subject. LLaughtor.] 

Mr. WHYTE. I was going to ask my friend from Wisconsin a question myself, whether or not when he was speaking of forgeries awhile 

go he did not know and diu not hear during the flagellation of · peech upon this subject that he has received during the last Con- :gress, whether it was not beaten into him, that those forged returns .actually if thrown out made in favor of McEnery's government' 

Mr. HOWE. Yes, I have hearcl that said on this floor. Exactly 

-what e:tfect would be produced by substituting true returns for forged 

etnrns, I do not think has been accurately calculated even in this 

protracted debate heretofore, and I am sure my friend, if he is dis- ,creet, will not undertake to calculate it just now. 

Mr. WHYTE. Now then, Mr. Prest dent, I do not see how my friend 

from Wisconsin and I can differ. I do not see why we cannot vote 

together. I am content to believe that there was a va.st amotmt of 

wrong and forgery and intimidation, if you please, in that election 

in Louisiana. 1 do not admire the system of election tactics that 

prevails in some rcgious of country. I have myself in early life felt 

some of the ad verse ffocts of fraud and perjury and intimidation and 

rascality at the polls, and I know that there are bad men in all parties 

who often assume tl10 machinery of elections and compromise the 

honest. That which I did more than twenty years ago in the House 

of Representatives I stand here to-day to do, protest against fraud 

and rascality at elections and to exclude from this body and the o~her Honse every man who comes with credentials tainted with 

v10leuce n.nu fraud. I care not to what party he belongs, he degrades 

either and he shall never receive my support and my sustentation. No, sir; I am on tho record iu regard to that, in those days when 

blood ran through the streets of my own city and fraud was rampant 

at every polling place. Send. them back whenever they colfle here 

with polluted certificates of election. Let us act together and unite on such common grounds as this, and I pledge myself to the Senator 

from Wiscon in whenever the facts disclo e that a fair expression of 

the popular will was not had, I will stand side by side with him and 

close these doors upon a m:m of any party that comes to pollute the 

integrity of th~ budy. Now let the Senator stand upon that platform of patriotism with me. 

1\Ir. HOWE. The Senator will allow me to assure him that I will 

stand there as lonc:r as 1 am able to stand anywhere. 1\fr. WHYTE. fhavo no doubt of it; and with all his intelligence, 

when be uomes to decide that question his judgment will be ba.sed 

upon facts and not upon feelings. 

But, sir, I know that I have wearied the Senate. It seems to have 

been presumption in me to have occupied its time, coming so recently 

within its walls; but I consider this question vital to the purity of 

election; I consider it vital to the peace and perpetuity of .the established institutions of our country; I consider that it addre, ses itself 

to our consciences and to our sense of right; .and therefore as long as I am a member of this body I feel that I shall be faithle s to my duty 

if I do not stand up here to protest against any man's admission who 

does not come "elected b;y the lawful Legislature of a State." 

But, 1\Ir. President, I meant to say, when talking about recognition, 

what did this Senate do and what did the House of Repre entatives 

do when you came to count the last electoral vote for Pr~ident of the 

United States' Were not t.he electors chosen at the same election T 

Were there not the same reasons applying T Were there not t\YO sets 

of electors acting in Louisiana, some voting for Greeley and some for 

Grant'!' Were there not two returns before the joint con~ention f 

And what did you f You counted out the vote of Louisiana altogether. 

Now, Mr. President, all I ask, all that any fair and rea-sonable man can ask, is that the Senate will approach this subject bound by no recognition whether of President or judicial authority, bound only as under the Constitution oi the United States we are bound by our sense of duty, by the principles of justice, by the rules, which should 

govern us in d.llitinguishing between right and wrong. 

Mr. 1\IORTON. I desire to call the attention of the Senator from 

Maryland [~fr. WHYTE] to the authority which he referred to as showing that there are cases in which the Supreme Court of the 

United States will not follow t.he decisions of the State courts upon 

questions arising under the· constitution and laws of the State. I 

asked him if there was not some question of Federal authority arising in that case upon which the Supreme Court of the United State& 

could act. He said not. The Senator was mistaken. In the first 

place, the court got juris!liction of the caae because the plaintiff wa-s a citizen of another State and the defendant was a citizen of Iowa. 

The Supreme Court in that case recognized the general doctrine 

fully and strongly, but they made it an exception simply upon this 

ground : There ha-d b~en a long current of de~isions recognizing the 

power of the Legislature of Iowa to create municipal corporations 

with authority to issue bonds; there had been, however, :recently a decision of the supreme court of that State denying that authority; 

but the bond in controversy bad been issued by a corporation while 

the supreme court of that State was affirming the authority of the 

corporations; and therefore the question came up broadly whether 

the second decision of the supreme court of Iowa if applied to a pre~ 

vious contract was not in the ·nature of a law impairing the obligaa 

tion of contracts and prohibited by the Constitution of the United 

States. There is where the question arose; and the Supreme Court. of the United States used the following language in the very opinion 

to which the Senator referred : 

The sound and true rule is that if. the contract, when made1 was valid by the ia.wa 

of the State as then expounded by all departments of the Government and admin' 

istered in its courts of justice, its validity and obligation cannot be impaired by 

:0~ ~f~eb~~ a{)tion of legislation or decision of its courts altering the construeThe same principle applies 'vhere there is a change of judicial j)eci.sion as to the 

constitutional power of the Legislature to enact the law. To this rule, thus en- larged, we adhere. It is the law of this court. It rests upon the plainest princi- ples of ju~:~tice. To hold otherwise woulq be a unjust as to hold that rights :wquired 

under a statute may be lost by its repeal. The rule embra{)es this case. Bonds and coupons like these, by universal commercial usage and consent, have 

all the qualities of commercial paper. If the plaintiffs recover in this case, they 

will be entitled to the amount specified, &o. (1 Wallace, 206.) · 

It was put upon that ground and upon that ground only, that it was in effect to impair the obligation of the contract, which the Constitution of the United States expressly prohibited, and even in that case a minority of the court dissented, and Judge Miller held that even in that case the United States courts were bound to follow the 

decision of the State courts, and went on to state the doctrintl at 

great length in a very able opinion; so that this case does not at all 

interfere with the statement that I made in regard to·what was the 

uniform decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment 

proposed by the Senator from Vermont [Mr. EDMUNDS] to the reso- lution of the Senat.or from Indiana, [1\Ir. MORTON.] ~fr. CONKLING. If no Senator wishes to address the Senate, I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive business- a motion which I will withdraw, of course, if any Senator wishes to 

take the floor. 

The motion was agreed to ; and the Senate proceeded to the con- sideration of executive business. After five minutes spent in execu- tive session tho doors wero reopened, and (at three o'clock and fortyfour minutes p. m.) the Senate adjourned. 

~SENATE. 

MONDAY, March 15, 187 i-~ 

Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. BYRON SUNDERLAND, D. D. 

The Journal of the proceedings of Saturday last was read and approved. FISH AND FISHERIES. 

Mr. ANTHONY. The Committee on Printin~, to whom was re- ferred a re olution to print six hundred additional copies of the 
54 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. MARCH 15, 

report of Professor Baird on fish and :fisheries, have .instructed me to 

report it back without amendment and recommend 1ts passa~Ye. 

The resolution was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed 

to, as follows: 

Resolved, That six hundred additional copies of the third report of Professor 

Spencer F. Baird, Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries, with the aooompanying documents, be printed for the use of the Senate. 

MISSISSIPPI ALLUVIAL BASIN. 

Mr. ANTHONY. The Committee on Printing, to whom was re- ferred a resolution to print five thousand copies of the report of the 

commis. ion of engineers on the best plan for the redemption of the 

alluvial ba.sin of the Mississippi River, have instructed me to report 

it with a.n amendment, and I a.sk its present consideration. 

The resolution was considered by unanimous consent. 

The aiDendment of the Committee on Printing was to strike out 

"five" and insert'•two" before "thousand;" so as to read: 

Resolved; That two thousand copies of the report of the commission of engineers appointed in compliance with the act of Congress app.roved June 22, _1874, t:O investigate and report a permanent plan for the reclamation of the allnVIalbasm of 

the Mississippi River subject to inundation be printed for the use of the Committee on the Levees of the Mississippi River. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

The resolution, as amended, was agreed to. 

DISTRIBUTION OF REVISED STATUTES. 

Mr. ANTHONY. Mr. Presirlent, a resolution which I drew veryinaavertently wa,s passed last week, directing that the same number 

of copies of the Revised Statutes that were distributed to Senators during the last Congress be distributed to the new Senators. I did notreflect that a.s the distribution of that document was ordered by act of 

Congress the usual reserve which is made in the folding-room for ex- tra copies was not made. Consequently there are no such copies for 

distribution. The distribution ls regulated strictly by law and is 

intrusted to the Secretary of State, who bas no authority whatever 

to distribute a copy except according to the provisions of the act. 

But it is in the power of the Senate to print as many as will come within the cost of $500, which will give, I think, six or eight copies 

to each of the new Senators, and at the next session the inequality can be corrected. I therefore, by direction of the Committee on Printing, o:fl'er the following resolution : 

Resolved, That the Congressional Printer print and bind so many additional 

copies of the Revised Statutes as can be printed and bound at a cost of 500; and 

that the same be distributed among the newly-elected Senators. 

The resolution was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed 

to. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I ask whether the previous resolution ought not 

to be reconsirlered or rescinded T . Mr. ANTHONY. Certainly. I move that the resolution which was passed the other day be rescinded. It is beyond the power of the 

Senate to do ·what it ordered. 

The VICE-PRESIDENT. The Senator from Rhode Island moves that the resolution passed on the 12th instant in relation to this snbject be rescinned. 

The motion was agreed to. 

El\llGRATIO~ TO THE BLACK HILLS. 

Mr. INGALLS. I beg leave to offer the following resolution fo.r 

present consideration : 

Resolved, That the President be requested to commnnica.te to the Senate, if not incompatible with public interests, any information in bls ·possession in regard to the proposed emigration to the lllack Hills country in the Sioux Inilian reserva- tion; whether such emigration is with the consent of the Indian t.ribes l10lding said country under the treaty of Febrnat·y 24, 1869, and if not, what measures will 

be taken in relation to the same. 

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the res- olution. · _ 

Mr. ALLISON. I should like to hear the resolution read again. 

The resolution was read. 

Mr. EATON. I beg to ask if that resolution does not come under 

the objection which was made by my colleague the other day f 

Mr. INGALLS. I think it does not, from the fact that it relates 

purely to an anticipated infra-ction of an existing treaty bet~een the 

Government and the Sioux Indians, which was ratified by the Senate 

in 1869. It proposes no legislation, but is simply an inquiry addressed to the Pre~dent. 

Mr. EATON. I thought the closin(J' terms of the resolution, if 

they meant anything, meant that some body, either this body or some other, would do something. I may have misunderstood the terms of 

the resolution. Let the Clerk report it again. 

The VICE-PRESIDENT. The resolution will be again read. 

The Chlef Clerk again read the resolution. 

Mr. EATON. I do not like to interpo e a point of order, but it 

strikes me that we are asking of the President of the United States 

through this resolution for certain information, and under certain contingencies we ask what shall be done. What is the meaning of 

that, unless it is that something shall be done by the President of the 

United States or by this or some other body Y It strikes me that it 

looks clearly to legislation, else the resolution is useless. 

Mr. INGALLS. I trust there will be no objection to the adoption 

of this resolution. It certainly is not amenable to the point of order 

intimated by the Senator from Connecticut, from the fact that it 

merely a.sks the President what steps be proposes to take in case there 

is any infraction of an existing tr.eaty. - Mr. BOGY. There is no legislation. 

Mr. INGALLS. There is no legislation anticipated or proposed by 

the resolution ; and if anything is to be done, it cannot be done too 

speedily. 

It is probably known to most Senators that the Sioux are the most 

ferocious, blood-thirsty, and implacable of all tbeln~ian tribes now in the northwestern portion of our country. They number about 

fifty thousand, of which number about forty thousand have been in 

the receipt of rations at various Indian agencies for the p:>.st four 

years, and ten thousand remain entirely intractable. In 1868, upon 'the 29th day of April, a treaty was concluded between the various 

bands of Sioux Indians and the United States, General Sherman, 

General Harney, General Augur, General Terry, and others acting 

for the Government, and one hundred and eighty-four chiefs and 

head-men acting on the part of the Sioux. The second article of that 

treaty providesThat the followin~ district of country, to wit, nam11ly, commencing; on the east bank of the Missonr1 River where the forty-sixth parallel of north latitude crosses the same, then along low-water mark down said east bank to a point opposite 

where the northern 1ine of the State of Nebraska strikes the river, thence west across said river and along the northern line of Nebraska to the one hundred and 

fourth degree of longitude west from Greenwioh, thence north on said meridian to 

a point where the forty-sixth parallel of north latitude intercepts the same, thence 

due east along said parallel to the place of beginning; and in addition thereto all 

existing reservations on the east bank of said river shall be, and the same is, set apart for the absolute and undisturbed use and occupation of the Indians herein 

named and for such other friendly tribes or individual Indians as from time to time they may be willing, with the consent of the United States, to admit among them. 

The sixteenth article of said treaty further providesThat the country north of theN orth Platte River and east of the summits of the 

Big Horn Mountains shall be held and considered to be unceded Indian territory, · and also stipulates and agrees that no white person or persons shall be permitted to settle upon or occupy any portion of the same. 

In consideration of these agreements, the Sioux Indians stipulatedFirst. That they will withdraw all opposition to the construction of the railroads now being built on the :r,lains. 

Second. That they will permit the peaceful construction of any railroad not passing over their reservation as herein defined. Thiru. That they will not attack any persons at home, or traveling, nor molest or disturb any wagon trains, coaches, mules, or cattle belonging to the people of the 

United States, or to persons friendly therewith. 

Fourth. They will never capture or carry off from the settlements white women or children. 

Fifth. They will never kill or scalp white men, nor attempt to do them harm. 

Sixth. They withdraw all pretense of opposition to the con trnction of the railroad now bein~ built along the Platte River and westward to the Pacific Ocean, and 

they will not m future object to the constrnotion of railroads, wagon-roads, mail 

stations, or other works of utility or necessity, which may be ordered or permitted 

by the laws of the United St.'\tes. But should such roo.ds or other works be. con- structed on r,he lands of their reservation the Q.Qvernment will _pay the tribe what- ever amount of damage may be assessed by three disinterested commissioners to be appointed by the President for that purpose, one of said commissioners to be a chief or head-manofthe tribe. 

Seventh. They agree to withdraw all opposition to the military posts or roads now established south of the North Platte River, or that may be established, not in violation of treaties heretofore made or hereafter to be made with any of the Indian tribes. 

The enormous reservation set apart by this treaty lies in the southwestern portion of the Territory of Dakota. In the western part of 

that territorial area is a region of cmmtry known as the "Black" ·Hills, from the dark forests of stunted pine by which they are cov- ered; a semi-mountainous region, a lateral or outlying spur of the 

main Rocky Mountain range; an irregular circle whose greatest di-· 

ameter is roughly.estimated at one hundred miles and whose circumference is described by the north and south forks of the Big Cheyenne 

River which rise in Wyoming Territory, sweep in curves from the 

west, and swoll~n by affl.uents which descend from the eastern declivities of the hills, unite about the center of there ervation and form one of the main tributaries of the Missouri River. 

It has for a long time been rumored that gold existed in large deposits in the "Black Hills," and it is apparent from indications now received from many sources-newspaper statement , letters from special correspondents, and others-that we are on the eve of an organized emigration from the western portions of the country to what is 

known a-s the" Black Hills country," which is a part of the Sioux 

l.Q.dian reservation held under the most sacred guarantees by these 

Indians and which the United States are bound to maintain, protect, 

and defend by every obligation of honor. . If this were merely a question between the gold-hunters and the 

Indians, I could view the result with entire composure ; but the difficulty li68 here: these Indians are already disturbed and exasperated 

by the military expedition of la <>t summer under General Custer. 

They are further irritated by the 1 ports now current in regard to the 

proposed invasion of their territory. They are implacable and intractable ; and the danger is that if this movement is permitted to 

go on they will consider themselves released from those treaty obligations, descetld upon the unprotected frontier settlements of Dakota, 

Nebraska, and Kansas, and that we shall have another bloody sum- mer of Indian rapine and massacre. Now, sir, the object of my resolution is not unfriendly to this proposed expedition. If there is gold, or timber, or valuable land in that 

country it will some time or other be occupied by the white race. So 

far as I am concerned the sooner the better ; but I am very solicitous 
1875. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. 55 

that immediate steps should be taken to advise tho people of the 

West, in the first place, that this country is held under treaty obligations, that it is occupied by the Sioux under guarantees that the 

United States are bound to protect and defend; and in the second 

place to notify the people who now threaten to invade this country 

what perils they will incur and to what dangers they will expose the 

unoffending settlers of the border. 

I hope, therefore, sir, in order to enable the President to make an authoritative declaration of the condition of this country and of 

the course that he will be compelled to pursue if this proposed expedition ~oes on, that no objection will be offered to the passage of this 

resolution. 

I may add that while the number of those who propose to join these 

expeditions is uncertain, some placing it as high as thirty thousand, some as high as :fifty thousand, I have no doubt that by the middle of 

April, unless the President authoritatively interferes and perhaps in 

spite of his interference, there will be not less than fifteen thousand 

people in the Black Hills country within the Sioux Indian reserva- tion; and in this event, with the present temper that exists among 

those Indians, I greatly fear that it will precipitate upon the western 

settlements of Kansas, Nebraska, and Dakota all the horrors of border 

Indian warfare. 

Mr. EATON. Mr. President, perhaps I am in error in regard to 

this resolution being liable to the objection which I suggested. 

While I am not the especial defender of .the President of the United 

States on this floor, I beg to ask his especial friends if they have any 

doubt that he will do his full duty in regard to the carrying out of 

treaties T I have no doubt myself, although I do not belong to the 

party to which I allude, that the President of the United States 

will do his entire duty in this matter and take such steps as may 

be necessary. At all events I beg to ask what good the pa&<Jage of 

this resolution will doT If it should be passed and sent to the 

President and should draw from him a communication to us, what 

good would that do throughout this broad land T . I apprehend, while 

I do not make any objection to the resolution, that the passage of it 

will do no good, and I am entirely confident that the President will 

do his full duty in the premises as to informing all the people of the 

rights of the Indians to that land. · Mr. INGALLS. I share the confidence that the Senator from Connecticut expresses in the intention of the President to perform his 

whole duty. I haye no doubt that he will discharge every obligation 

devolved upon him by the terms of this treaty, which is one of the 

most important ever made between this Government and the Indian 

nations of the Northwest. 

The Senator further inquires what good will be accomplished by 

the adoption of this resolution. It will do good in many important 

particulars. In the first pla-ce, it will advise the people of the Northwest of the tenure, the title, by which this reservation is held, of which 

many of them are now ignorant. That fact alone, I am convinced, 

will deter those citizens who are law-abiding and intelligent from 

joining what would then appear to be an unlawful expedition. In 

the second place, it will be beneficial by advising the country at large as to what steps the President will take to prevent any proposed infraction of that treaty; whether he proposes to station troops there; 

whether he intends to. establish posts and garrisons there; in other 

words, whetber the people who propose to join these expeditions will 

be compelled to meet the armed force of the Government and con- quer their way into the territory. 

I believe.] sir, that the President will feel called upon to maintain 

and uphola the guarantees of this treaty by all the power at his 

command. I think it is his duty to do so. But at the same time so long as the country is left in doubt what his duties are and what 

steps are to be taken, there is danger that men may presume upon 

the fact that they will be allowed to enter the country without opposition ; and the Senator knows perfectly well that if anything is to 

be done it must be done promptly. By the middle of April, or as soon as there is sufficient gra-ss upon the plains to furnish subsistence 

for stock, these expeditions will be en route for that region. Transportation companies, as we are informed by the papers, have been 

<>rganized in Sioux City, in Yankton, and at various other places 

upon the Missouri River. Stage lines are about to be established. 

Everything indicates that we are on the eve of another one of those 

subtle contagions commonly called a "gold fever," an epidemic that 

will result perhaps in disaster and ruin to thousands of people like 

that of Pike's Peak in 1859 and others that are within the memory of Senators. 

As the Senator from Connecticut intimates that this action cer- tainly can do no harm and that he does not propose to resist it, and as in my judgment it is a matter of exceeding importance to protect 

the frontier settlers of Dakota . .Kobra-ska, and Kansas from the dangers now threatening of Indian massacre, I hope ·the Senate will 

adopt the resolution promptly. 

The resolution was agreed to. 

CASE OF W. K. SEBASTIAN. 

Mr. FERRY, of Michigan, presented a letter of C. C. Washburn 

covering a statement of facts connected with the petition of the heirs 

of the Iate William K. Sebastian, praying for the annulment of the 

resolutwn of the Senat.e for his expulsion from the Senate in 1!;61; 

which was refened to the Committee on Privileges and Elections, 

and ordered to be printed. 

lli. SAULSBURY presented additional papers pertaining to the 

application of the heirs of the late William K. Sebastian, Unite1l 

States Senator from Arkansa-s, praying the annulment of the order of 

his expulsion from the Senate; which were referred to the Commit: tee on Privileges and Elections, and ordered to be printed. 

PAPERS WITHDRAWN. 

On motion of Mr. ALCORN, it wa-s 

Ordered, That F. Moore, of Horn Lake, Mississippi, have leave to withdraw his 

petition and papers from the files of the Senate. 

SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA. 

The Senate resumed the consideration of the following resolution 

submitted by Mr. MORTON on the 5th -instant: 

Resolved, That P. B. S. Pinchbook be admitted as a Senator from the State of 

Louisiana for the term of six years, beginning the 4th day of March, 1873. 

The pending question being on the amendment of Mr. EDMUNDS 

to insert before " admitted" the word " not." 

Mr. FERRY, of Connecticut. Mr. President, I desire to say a very 

few words upon that branch of the argument of the Senator from Indiana [Mr. MORTON] which had reference to the effect of the decision 

of the President of the United States as to the legiti.ri:tacy of a State executive or Legislature when the President is called upon to suppress domestic violence in a State. I listened to that argument a year ago with much interest; but at the same time I thought then 

that it was rather a final resort of a debater in pursuance of authority 

for his case than a serious claim undertheConstitution which that Senator would insist upon with the pertinacity with which he ha adhered 

to it from that day to this. And it seems that his views upon that particular branch of the case have not only not altered with the progress 

of time, but have become so firm and stable that he regards that 

branch of his argument, in his own language, as unanswered and un- answerable. While I do not pretend to attempt a detailed answer to 

the argument, yet that Senator is so able, he occupies so prominent a position in this body, that when this case shall be examined in time 

to come in search of precedents I am unwilling to have the opinion 

expressed by the Senator go upon the record withon~ at least my protest against it. 

I shall endeavor to state as concisely as possible the proposition 

which I deduce from the argument of the Senator from Indiana with 

regard to the effect of the President's decision, and I will state that 

proposition as I understand it. It is that when the President is called 

upon to suppress domestic violence under the act of 1795 his compli- ance with the call involves the determination of the lawfulness of 

the authori1y ma.king the call, whether it be the State executive or the Legislature ;· and the Senate, in judging of the election and re- turns of a person claiming to have been chosen a Senator from that 

State, is conclusively ·bonnd by such determination of the President 

till Congress shall have made a different decision, so that the Senate 

may not inquire whether the person signing the election return be 

the governor of the State or whether the assemblage which chose 

the claimant to be a Senator was the Legislature of the State, if such 

person or assemblage be the same that the President has determined 

to be the lawful executive or legislative authority. · • That I understand to be the proposition of the Senator from Indiana; and it strikes me as repugnant to the Constitution in its plainest 

terms and utterly destructive of the independence of both Houses of 

Congress. 

Now let us consider for a moment the origin of the powers of the 

Senate upon the question now before us, and of the President in determining, so far as he does determine, the legitimacy of the authority makin~ a call upon him to suppress domestic violence. The 

Senate denves its powers from the Constitution. It required no legislation, no act of Congress, to define the mode in which the Senate 

should exercise those powers or the machinery by which it shoulu 

operate. The Senate, by the single provision of the Constitution 

itself, judges of the election and returns of its members ; and unquestionably before any act of Congress was pa-ssed conferring on the 

President the power to suppress domestic violence in the manner provided by the act of 1795, the Senate, under the Constitution, alone 

had the right to inquire and determine whether the person signing 

the return was the true executive authority of the State and the 

power to determine whether the assemblage choosing the claimant was the true Legislature of the State. The Senate certainly possessed that power under the Constitution, and without any limitation 

whatever, during the first six years of the existence of this Government, for from 1789 to 1795 the act under which alone the President 

acquires any authority whatever was not in existence; and we ar~ 

therefore presented, upon the claim of the Senator from Indiana, 

with the strange assertion that a mere act of Congress may devolve 

upon the President of the United States powers which shall limit . and control conclusively a power deri vod by the Senate from the 

Constitution itself! 

Well, sir, I have onJy to say that if such is the effect of the act of 

1795, if that act has conferred upon the President the power in any . case to determine conclusively upon t he legitimacy of the executive or legislative authority of ~L St:1te making a call upon him to suppress dome tic violence, so as to control the Senate in making inquiry after the lawfulness of that authority when it is judging of the election and return of its members, then that act so far is void, for it is a clear infraction of the Constitution itself. 
56 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. MARCH 15, 

But, sir, I cannot give to the act of 1795 any such force as the Senator claims for it, and I think that he has fallen into an error in not 

considerin&' the mischief which existed before the act of 1795 was passed ana for which it provided a remedy, and the true scope and 

purpose of that act. 

As I have said, the Senate derives its power to judge of the legitimacy of the authority choosing a Senator or signing his credentials 

directly from the Constitution. The President derives no authority 

directly from the Constitution t.o suppress domestic violence. The 

Constitution does not confer upon the President the power to suppress domestic violence. The Constitution provides that the Unitecl 

States shall have certain powers : 

Tho United States shall guarantee to every Sta,te in this Union a republic.'lJl form 

of government, and shall protect.oach of them against invasion; and on application 

of tho Legislature, or of the executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened,) 

against domestic violence. . 

The Constitution confersthatpowerupon "the United States;" and as the suppression of domestic violence necessarily involves the exer- cise of the·physical force of the United States, it became necessary 

for Congress, in order that the clause which I have read should have 

any effect whatever, to provide the machinery bywhich the physical 

force of tho Unitod States could be applied in the snppres ion of 

domestic violence; and therefore Congress passed the act of 1795, 

providing that the President, the executive branch of the Government, that which wields the physical force of the United States, 

should be possessed of the powers enumerated in that act in the suppression of domestic violence. 

The purpose for which the act was pUBSed and for which the power was conferred upon the President wa-s simply to suppress domestic 

violence. The evil which existed before the law was passed was that there was no adequate machinery, no channel through which • the physical force of the United States could pour itself to suppress 

domestic violence. The remedy was to confer upon the President, 

the executive branch of the Government, the authority in the mode 

provided by t.he statute to suppress such violence; and that is the 

whole scope and purpose of the authority conferred upon the President. Incidentally, where there ru-e rival claimants either to the 

executive or legislative authority of the State, and one or both of the 

rival claimants makes its call on the President to suppress domestic 

violence, there incidentally th~ President must determine which·(for 

the purpose for which ho is to e~erciso his powers under this act) is 

the lawful authority. He is to determine it for the purpose of 

through that channel sending forth the Federal force to suppress the 

violence which is threatened or which has .actually burst forth; and 

it is only for the purpose of accomplishing the object of that act, the 

suppression of domestic violence, that the President makes this his 

determination, and that his determination is binding against all 

domestic violence from any source in the contingency which ha-s 

arisen. It commands physical obedience everywhere; it cannot be 

contradicted or denied within the scope of the power conferred upon 

the President by the act ·and for the purposes for which the act was passed. And so it continues binding to compel physical obedience 

from all quarters until it shall have been set aside by other competent authority. It is not needful for me to say here what I suppose 

that other competent authority to be. I do not agree with the Senator from Indiana upon. that point; but it is not necessary for the 

purposes of m.r present argument. 

Mr. MORTON. Will not the Senator state what the competent au- thority is to reverse that decision t 

Mr. FERRY, of Connecticut. I prefer not to state it, because it is 

not involved in my present ar~ent. I do not think that under the 

guarantee clause of the Constitution which I have just read, conferring upon the United States power to suppress domestic violence, it 

is the Congress of the United States in its legislative capacity which 

is to determine the legitimacy of rival claimants for executive or legislative authority in a State. I understand the Senator from Indiana 

to take that position, that it is the Congress as a Congress that is to 

determine between rival claimants to executive or legislative authority in a State as to the legitimacy of the authority which they are wielding. I differ from him in that respect, and I might go on to state 

the opinion which I have on that subject, but it is not necessary for 

the purpose of my present discussion. Ultimately I do think, from 

other portions of the Constitution, the question might be necessarily 

remitted to the Congress of the United States where absolute anar- chy is found to have intervened in a State owing to the conflict of 

rival claimants to authority and the necessity of the intervention of 

Federal power is created by the necessity of self-preservation. But, as I said, what is the finally competent authority is a matter which, 

in my judgment, is outside of the question now before the Senate. I 

want to confine myself to the simple question as to how the argument 

of the Sena,tor from Indiana stands upon the inquiry whether the 

Senate, in judging of the election and returns of its members, is to be 

bound by a determination of the President of the United States made 

incidentally in the exercise of his authority under an act of Congress 

to suppress domestic violence, for that purpose only, and in my judgment binding only to compel physical obedience from all quarters 

until the absolute n.nd final decision of the controversy between the 

rival claimants to State authority. 

As I have said, the President is empowered with the functions set 

forth in the act of 1795 for the sole purpose of oppressing domestic 

violence-to use the common expression, to keep the peace. He determines for that purpose between the rival claimant , and according 

to his determination exercises the powers conferred upon him by the 

act of 1795, puts a stop to domestic violence on both sides and aJl 

sides, keeps the peace until the civil and political question involved 

between the rival claimants is settled by legitimate authority. And 

the question is now before us whether, pending that final decision, while the President is wielding the power which he posses eR only 

under the act of 1795 to keep the peace, holdin~ the partie. ba~k from 

flying at one another's throats-for that is all he is doing; that i 

what the act of 1795 t-ells him to do; that is what the Constitution 

says the United States shall do, and the United States by au act of 

Congre s has made the executive branch the machinery through 

which its physical force shall operate to keep the peace until the 

civil or political controversy between the rival claimants is settled; 

f11ld in the mean time the assertion, the strange a ertion, is set. up 

here by the Senator that the Senat~ or the House, either of them, is 

bound by this mere incidental determination of the President in the 

exercise of his function of keeping the peace so conclusively that the 

power which both Hou8es confessedly possessed before the act of 1795 was passed, by virtue of the Constitution itself, is wre ted from the 

two Houses despite the Constitution f Sir. this cannot be so. 

. And, finally, ~hat is the le~itimate corollaryflo~gfr~n;t the p~ ition of the Senator from·IndJana'f Let me state his po81tion agam; 

I have read it carefully and understand it. When the President is 

called upon to suppress domestic violence under the act of 1795, his compliance with the call involves the determination of the lawfulness 

of the authority making the call, whether it be the State executive or the Legislature, and the Senate in judging of the election and re- turns of a person claiming to have been chosen a Senator from that 

State is necessarily bound by such determination of the President 

till Congress shall have m:tde a different decision; so that the Senate 

may not inquire whether the person signing the election return b 

the governor of the State or whether the as emblage which cho e the claimant to the Senate was the Legislature of tbe State, if such 

person or a-ssemblage be the same that the President has determined 

to be the lawful executive or legislative authority. That is the prop- osition. 

Now, in addition to what I have said, if this propo ition be true 

the following corollary inevitably flows from it: that under such 

circumstances, even though the Senate may know that the per on signing the return wa-s not the ~overnor and the assemblage choosing 

the claimant was not the LegLslature, neverthele it mu t accept 

both a,s the lawful legislative and executive authority of the State in 

judging of the election and returns of claimants, solely because the 

President has decided that fact! And that is the very case before u I 

I know that it is proposed before this debate is finished to go into an argument upon the fa-cts to prove that the report of the committee of two years ago is false in point of fact; that in point of fact Kellogg was elected and the Legislature that chose Pinchba~k was electedi· and that the report of the committee is false in both those 

particu ars. But, sir, it is too late to et up that cL-tim now; it is too 

late upon ingenious plausibilities which have been manufactured 

during the last two years to set aside a report based upon six or seven hundred pages of testimony open to every one of us, and which te - timony, if carefully read, will report against the Kellogg executive 

and legislative authority still more decidedly than the committee of 

1873 found; and there is no safe course for us, Senators, now, there can be no safe course for us, except to take the facts a to the legitimacy of the government set up there a~;~ the Kellogg government upon 

the basis of the report of the committee made after weeks, perhaps months, of investigation, and against the personal and political 

wishes at the time of the very gentlemen who made the report. 

The case which I have supposed in this corollary is then the case before us. From the great volume of evidence, from the careful report 

of the committee, we as a Senate know that when that a emblaO'e 

in January, 1873, proceeded to choose a Senator and cho e Mr. Pinch- ba~k, it was not the Legislature of Louisin.na; and when William P. 

Kellogg in January, 1873, signed his name to that certificate of 

election, we know that he was not the lawful governor of Louisiana. 

And yet Senators who have listened to this argument and who have 

listened to the Senator from Indiana from beO"inning to end, have 

not heard from him one single claim with regard to that fact oppo ing 

the report of the committee except "we have the formn.l, technical 

decision of the President of the United States; we are bound by it; 

the argument is unanswered and unanswerable;'' and though we do 

know that in admitting Mr. Pinch back as a Senator we are admitting 

the pe1-soni.fication of infamous forgery and falsehood, yet we must 

do it! The power which the Constitution gave us we shall not exer- cise because a law made under the Constitution ha-s given the President of the United States power to subvert our authority! 

Sir, it seems to me that such claims as the e only indicate the desperation of the case, and I am not surprised, when such claims of law as these have been fairly sifted by the Senate, at the last moment the 

ground should be changed, and instead o.f asserting the binding authority in law of certam official acts, we are to have a new version 

of the Louisiana case, and, from undiscovered testimony hitherto, to 

be assured that after all, after the six hundred pages of testimony 

tending all in one direction to show that your Kellogg executive and 

legislative authority was a mere sham, we are at last to be told that 
1875. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. 57 

the truth is that Kellogg was elected, the Legislature counted in with 

him was the Legislature, and therefore without regard to these questions of law, upon the fact alone, Mr. Pinchback is to be entitled to a seat. It was needful to make a change of base, because upon the 

proposition as erted by the Senator from Indiana we are bound to 

find that a falsehood is the truth; we are bound to find and assert 

that the truth is a lie; and we are to do it upon the technical claim 

of the binding force of an executive determination made solely for arriving at the proper channel in which to exercise the physical 

force of the United States to suppress domestic violence. 

Mr. MORTON. Mr. President, I will occupy but a moment to call 

the attention of the Senate to the position taken by the -Senator from 

Connecticut. First, the Senator's language in .regard to what is shown by the report of two years ago, in my opinion, is not sustained. 

The Senate knows no such thing as he says it does, and he does not 

know it himself. On the contrary I think a careful analysis of that 

report, and of the evidence presented, disproves his statement. The 

Senator overlooks the fact stated by the report itself, that if McEnery was elected, it was the success of a monstrous fraud, a fraud intended 

to overcome an acknowledged republican maiority in that State; 

and what the Senator insists upon is the success of the fraud. 

But I do not intend to argue the fact. I simply want to call attention to the position of law taken by the Senator. If I understood 

him correctly, he started out with the same statement th;1t the Supreme Court did in the ca.se of Luther vs. Borden, that the power of 

the President to suppress domestic insurrection does not spring from 

the Constitution but springs from the act of Congre.ss. There I agree 

with him, and that admission is fatal to his argument in my judgment. The Supreme Court say in that case that the whole authority 

of the President is derived from the act of Congress and that the act 

of Congress empowers him to decide which of the two governments is 

the lawful government, for without making that decision he cannot 

determine which one he will support by the Army of the United 

States and which one he will put down. He is first required to make 

that decision, and after he has made that decision he will support 

the one and suppress the other. 

Now, what is the effect of that decision made by virtue of an act 

of Congress¥ If there is anything wrong, it is in the act of Congress. The effect of it is to bind the courts of the United States. 

The Supreme Court say expressly that while the conte.st is raging the 

courts of the United States will recognize that government which is 

recognized by the Pre.sident, and they say furthermore that after the 

contest is over they will still recognize that government recognized 

IJy the Pre.sident. 

Yet if this right does not reside in the courtsThat is when the conte.st is ragingwhen the conflict is ra~g. if the judicial power is a.t that time bound to follow 

the decision of the politica.[, it must be equally bound when the contest is over. It cannot, w.hen peace is restored, punish as offenses and crimes the acts which it before recognized and was bound to recognize as lawful. 

Now what is t.he consequence of that f That the courts of the 

United States after the contest is over are still bound to recognize 

that government in the State which the President ha recognized. 

Now I come to the point where the Senator I think utterly failed. 

He said that the Congress of the United States had not the power to reverse the decision of the President. If Congress as a Congress has 

not the power, where does that power reside¥ 

Mr. FERRY, of Connecticut. Will the Senator excuse. me f I did 

not intend to be diverted from the direct scope of what I was saying 

to express any opinion as to the ultimate authority which should decide between rival claimants in a State government. I now repeat 

simply what I said, as the Senator does not state me exactly correct--

Mr. MORTON. I want to get the Senator exactly right. 

Mr. FERRY, of Connecticut. What I said was that I do not think 

Congress derives any power to decide between the rival claimants 

for State authority from the clause in the Constitution authorizing 

the United States to suppress domestic violence. That is what I said. 

Mr. MORTON. Now I take the Senator upon that point. He says 

Congress ha.s not the power. Then there is no power. If the President has the power to make the decision and determine which one of 

the e governments he will sustain, ancl the Supreme Court say that 

the courts of the United States are bound to follow and to continue 

to recognize that decision, and if Congress has no power to reverse it, 

I ask if one House alone can reverse it It comes down to the 1'eductio ad absw·dtmt. . If Cong-ress as a body, the two Houses acting together through legislation, have no power to reverse that decision, can one Honse alone do itt If it can, then one Honse may decide one way and the other Hon e may decide the other way, and the courts 

of the United States may still decide a third way, following the decision of the President of the United States. No; there is but one logical conclusion about it, and it has not been answered. The Senator from Ohio the other day said-I will not say childishly, but he 

repeated it everal times-"The Senator from Indiana has made that 

argrunent half a dozen times." It ha never been answered, if I have; 

and the point is that if Congre s cannot reverse that decision, there 

is no power to do it. But I say Congress can. I say the Constitution 

gives that power to Congress and to nobody else-not to one House 

alone. 

do not say that the Senate is bound to do anything. The Senate 

is not bound to recounize the governor of Connecticut. You cannot 

force the Senate to do anything. But I s~y that the doctrine of the Constitution is! and consistency requires, that when the Pre.sident 

has made a demsion in pursuance of the law, and the courts of the United States are bound to follow that decision, as· the Supremo 

Court say they are, and the courts of the State are bound to follow 

it, that decision cannot be reversed except by Congress, both Houses 

acting together in the form of legislation ; for to allow one House to 

do it is to make anarchy. Take the case in Rhode Island. Snppose, 

if you plea.se, when the President made his decision in that case, and 

the courts of the United States followed that decision, and the courts 

of the State followed that decision, yet that the Senate of the United 

States had resolved to recognize the Dorr government and to admit a Senator elected by that government, what would have been the. con- dition of the relations between Rhode Island and the United States 

Does not anybody see that they would have been abnormal, absurd 

relations, that could not have been sustained, and clearly unconstitutional¥ When Congre.ss as a Congre s determine that the President 

has made a wrong decision, then the President is bound to follow 

that determination. "The United States" then; in ihe language of 

the Constitution, will have decided otherwise. But bear in mindand that is a point the Senator fails to answer-that the President 

makes his decision in pursuance of law, and all the courts are bound 

to follow it, say the Supreme Court, until it has been reversed; and 

who can reverse itt The Senator even does not admit the power of 

Congress to reverse it; and yet he a serts the power of one body 

alone to reverse it and to put a Senator into this Chamber in conflict 

with the decision of the Pre.sident and of the courts of the countrv. 

Mr. FERRY, of Connecticut. I know the Senator doe.s not intend 

to misrepresent me--

Mr. MORTON. I do not. If that is not your position, I misunderstood you. 

Mr. FERRY, of Connecticut. I have stated expressly twice over that my position is that Congress doe.s not derive any power from 

the authority of the United States to suppress domestic violence; to 

decide between contesting claimants for State authority. I have not 

said, either when I first spoke or in reply to the Senator's question a few moments ago, that Congress does not possess the power at 

all, for in my judgment when the conflict between rival claiiuants in a State results in the overthrow of civil government in the State with an incapacity of the re.sumption by the State of the faculty of civil 

government, Congress, on the principle of self-preservation, is bound 

to interfere and decide. · 

Mr. MORTON. I understand the Senator now. He says that Congress is bound to interfere. In other words, does the Senator mean to 

say that Congress does possess the power to 1·everse the President's 

decision and say that the other government is the lawful government 

of the State t If he means to say that, I agree with him and we come right_ together. But he says that doubtingly, hesitatingly. I think 

he ouuht not. I agree fully as to the power of Congres , but not as to the power of oue House alone. While the President's decision 

stands unreversed by Congress it must be accepted by each Honse 

acting separately. Any other conclusion, it seems to me, is anarchy; 

any other conclusion is clearly unconstitutional. 

Mr. WEST. Mr. President, I would have preferred not to address 

the Senate to-day. I am not exa:etly prepared. I was in hope.s some Senator either on this side of the Chamber or on the other wottl.d 

have risen and claimed the attention of the Senate; but finding no- body else apparently inclined to do it, I wiU occupy their tin1e for a brief period, premising that my remarks and perhaps my argument, 

from the bet that I did not expect to speak now, may be somewhat 

desultory and disconnected. But I am actuated to reply to a remark 

just made by the Senator from Connecticut [Mr: FERRY] who. claims 

that the republican government in Louisiana which was elected in 

1872 had no ba.sis but infamous falsehood and forgery. That is the 

charge which we have had continuously to meet on the part of our opponents, and I think it is time that some one should be prepared 

to rebuke that charge and to charge home upon our opponents that 

the falsehood and the forgery lie with them, and that the attempt to 

subvert the verdict of the people at the ballot-boxes in the State of 

Louisiana in 1872 was a fraud initiated and continued by our opponents and not by the republican party. . Followin~ the example of the Senators who have hitherto participated in this debate, I offer the customary apology to those who e ears aud attention are already weary of the subj ect, and essay to address . myself to the later comers among ns. I would ask the Senators of my own political faith to give attention while I show the frauds designed 

and perpetrated in 1872 upon the republicans of Louisiana whereby 

tl\at State has been remitted to a condition of revolu-&ion, bloodshed, 

industrial depre.ssion, and political oppression for the past two years; 

where by an ingenuity r.lmost marvelous the better has been made to 

appear the worse cause in the popular estimation, and the republican 

party throughout 4;he nation has been held up as responsible for a 

political crime of great gravity, while the very perpetrators of that 

crime unblushingly parade themselves as innocent and denounce 

their victims as guilty. 

I am not unmindful that there is a prevailing disgust with this so- called Louisiana case. It finds a parallel in two contemporaneons 

case.s, one recently notorious in England and another in this country now vexing the searcher after truth. But our decision approaches, 
58 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. MARCH 15, 

arid I earnestly appeal to those of my political faith in this Chamber 

whose votes shall make that decision to remember the trials, the persecutions, and the sufferings of those who uphold the banner of that 

faith in the South. I ask them to look into all the circumstances. I 

ask them to believe as I do and as I think I can demo:ostrate if they 

will listen to me, that the republicans of Louisiana. in 1872 were and 

that they are to-day in a majority,_ that they rig!Itfully electec~ the~ 

governor in that year, that the claunant whose nght to a seat rn this 

body we are now about to determine wa.~ in every res_pect leo-ally 

elected, that he has been indorsed again and reindorsed by the Legislature, that he is, outside of all partisan considerations, fully entitled to be admitted; and if we shall so decide, I promise them and I 

promise the Senate that the much vexed and dangerous Louisiana 

troubles will be set at rest forever; that political strife will thenceforward be confined in that State within the. control customary to 

other sections ; and that peace shall reign and bless where anarchy 

has brooded and blighted. To other honorable Senators of the opposite political faith I would plead for their attention that they may hear 

the reverse of the story ordinarily presented to them, and I would 

ask them to pause ere they lend themselves to the perpetration of a wrong initiated by a few unprincipled men who adopted democracy as a convenient cloak for spoils-seeking and who deliberately planned a scheme of wholesale fraud upon the elective franchise in Louisiana 

and have deceived and deluded the men of that party faith there, who, 

incapable of wrong themselves, are outraged in their delusive conviction that they have been defrauded of the government of their choice. 

My proposition, Mr. President, will be to claim nothing by the so- called forged and falsified returns. Taking the returns as made by the 

republican board of Louisiana, I claim nothing under them ; and I as emphatically deny the claim of the opposition to anything resulting 

from their returns. The truth of thefactsisthis: We had one board in 

that State pronounced by the highest judicial authority of that State as incompetent to deal with the returns, and that board had the re- turns. We had another board pronounced by that same authority as competent to take cognizance of the returns, and that board had no returns. Consequently we have no case presenting an election 

here, so far as returns are concerned. I shall endeavor to show that 

the claimant in this case, not for a seat but the claimant, McEnery, 

that the democratic party carried that State has no authentic claim, 

and as a logical consequence, if he was not elected it follows that 

the republican candidat e was. You can have but one determination 

to an election. When two men are voted for, it must be concluded 

that one or the other of those two men was chosen, and in denying 

that the democrat was elected I think I shall prove that the republican was. 0 

Let me ask your attention, because this is the new feature in the case and I believe I am the only Senator who presents it in that 

light, that I go behind the returns, as we are forced in this case to 

go behind the certificate ~f the claimant. I go behind the returns 

and I a k 0 you from a] L the evidence in this report, I ask you from 

the conclusions of the report itself, whether the legitimate result is 

not that the republican party lawfully elected their candidate on 

that day 

We have ha-d the proposition stated ;o us again and again that the 

certificate of Governor Kellogg does not constitute an election of 

Senator by a lawful body. We are forced into this attitude by those 

who oppOSE\ the admission of this man. We are forced to analyze 

what constitutes an election. It is denied that there is anything on the face of the papers; and if they are determined to go behind our papers, I insist upon going behirtd theirs. Assuming for the sake of 

the argument that this is true, are we not then permitted to inquire 

whether a certificate made by a returning board that a certain man was elected governor of Louisiana in 1872 does or not constitute an election by a lawful body of electors Y If we can look into the qualifications or the acts of the Legislature that elected a Senator, are we not permitted to look into the acts of the electors who elected the 

governorf If we can inquire whether Pinchback was not elected not withstanding his certificate, can w~ not inquire whether Kellogg was elected although he has no certificate, according to the ground 

and position taken by our opponentsf They take the ground that a • certificate does not constitute an election. I adopt their argument 

ancl say the votes of the legal Legislature caused an election of 

Scuator and the votes of the people elected the governor. If the 

votes of the people show that Kellogg was elected governor, the same votes will show that the Legislature that chose Mr. Pinchback 

Cenator were also elected. I have never based the claim of either 

the one or the other upon returns or certificates. Kellogg's certificate can only give Pinchback a prima facie case, leaving us the 

authority to investigate whether the Legislature was legally chosen 

that sends him here as the representative of that State. In dealing 

with this case I maintain that we are permitted to examine into what con titutes an Qlection for governor as well as what constitutes an election for Senator. If the proof demonstrates the fact that Kel- logg was elected, it will necessarily show that the Legislature wa-s also elected, and I think the proof is conclusive on both points. It is neccss::t.ry in the line of what I am stating for me now to examine 

into the polia.cal complexion-and the word is particularly appropriate in the connection in which I use it-the political complexion of 

the voters of Louisiana. With a maladroitness that will n ot stand 

scrutiny, the census is continually quoted as proving conclusively that 

the division of races is such in that State ·and the political affinities of 

those races are such that it is impossible that there should be a republican majority in that State. :Merely :recurring to the results of the 

election of 1870 in which the republican party carried that State by some twenty-odd thousand majority, I will come down to the inauguration and the initiation of the campaign that has been so long discussed here. Taking the figures of the census of 1870-and here is 

where I want to refute one of the fallacies that are continually thrust 

upon us- we find that the white and black races in Louisiana are divided, count.!ng men, women, and children, within about two 

thousand difference. There are some two thousand more black inhabitants of the State of Louisiana than there are white. Taking 

that same census and ex.amining the number of male adults, you dis- cover that there are just about one hundred more white male adults 

than there are black; and there is where the examiners of this census who take the other side of the position from the one that I assume choose to stop in their investigation. In a recent report that we hav.e 

from the House on this subject the gentlemen making the report, 

contrary to tlie opinions tha.t I hold, use that very census. Now let 

us see how they use it. 

The census of 1870 (the correctness of which i.s not impeached)-

! hold them to their own authority and their own testimonyshowed 87,076 whites and 86,913 colored males over twenty-one years of a~eo All 

the statistics and evidence before us indicated no change in this proportion m favor 

of the colored vO'iers. 

In a previous report these very gentlemen said that they made no examination into the political condition of the State generally; but 

they expressed their surprise here that there should have been an in- crease of four thousand colored men and they say it i~:~ unaccountable. 

The facts are that since some of the States in our immediate vicinity 

·have relapsed under the control of a party inimical, as they consider 

it, to the black men, they have largely emigrated from those States 

and immigrated to mine. It is then, in my judgment, easy to account 

for the fact that there should be an increase of the blaek vote over the census. Then they say that the white registration is ten thousand less than the census. As I took occasion to say to the Senate once before, had they examined from pages 619 and G29 of the census report of 1870 they would have discovered that in the State of Louisiana there are fifteen thousand unnaturalized foreigners not en- titled to vote; they would have discovered that in the single parish of Orleans alone out of those fifteen thousand there are nine thousantl 

congregated; and yet the democrats claim that they shall be legitimate voters to offset the colored men who are legal citizens. 

So, taking the census, taking their very authority, takin~ their own documentary evidence, we have an admitted majority m that 

State of fifteen thousand republican voters. I know that it will be 

urged " Does it follow that because a man is black he votes the re- publican ticket¥" Once more I want to quote their own authority on the subject. In the testimony taken before this Committee on Privileges and Elections there was a contestant for a seat in this 

body for the short term and subsequently for a seat for the long 

term; his name wa-s McMillen, a gentleman for whom I entertain the 

highest respect; and when he was examined on oath before the com- mittee he testified, as Senators will hav"e the opportunity of realizing if they will examine his testimony, that there were as many 

black men as white men who voted opposite tickets during that cam- paign; that the number was about equalized; in other words, he said 

that from the best of his information there were five thousand white men who voted the republican ticket and he thinks there were five 

thousand colorecl men who voteu the democratic ticket. So then 

the vote is left standing as it was on the color line, with our ascer- tained majority in that State of 15,000. 

I know how customru:y it is to say that colored men are not allieu 

to the republican party. We have had evidence on that subject here 

too and we have refuted that idea, and the assertion is now seldom 

made. There was one other witness and the only witness who gave 

any testimony on that subject, and he was a gentleman more noted 

for the volubility of his utterances than for the soundness of his judgment, and he thought there were eight thousand black men who 

voted the democratic ticket. Now let me go back to the facts again, which show a presumption as to how these votes were cast and show also a corroborative presumption. The whole election machinery of that State was in tho 

hands of our political opponents, and in mn.nipulating the registration of the State to all the ultimate advantage that they could expect 

to derive from such practices, t.hat very democratic board of r egistration was compelled to return a oolored majority of 11,000 in 

the State. I will not follow the deta!.s of that election. On one 

side it is all fraud, and on the other side it is all guess-work. It is 

not necessary tu go into those facts; but let ns quote now the r eport . that bas been made upon which so much reliance is placed to show 

that we did not carry the State. The Senator from .Michigan [Mr. CHRISTIANCY]-to whom I listenecl the other day with profound respect and great r egard in refer- ence to Lis law points although I must be constrained to take some exception to them simply because they leave us without remedy; to use one of his own illustrations, they are "entirely circular, they entl 
' 

' ' ·-. l 

1875. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. 59 

where they begin anl begin where they end"-wa.rns us.of danger, 

and he points out to us no path of safety; but in quoting the facts 

he took occasion to say : • 

Now according to my reading of the evidence, and according to the report made to this 'senate in 1873, and those recently made to the Honse, the m~ority of the 

people of Louisiana are oppo~ed to th~ Kellogg government. 

According to the report made to the Senate in 18731 

Mr. CHRISTIANCY. The Senator will allow me to say that that wa.s in reference to this point which I made: 

It has been gravely urged here that, Louisiana being entitled t{) two Senators 

upon thi.~ floor, it is a. wrong ro the people of that State ro refuse them the enjoy- ment of that right. 

The question of a majority of the people one way or the other, so far a.s it relates to my argument, was confined to the majority as it now exists, not as it existed in 1872, unless the Senator should claim 

that 1\fr. Pinch back, if now elected, would be entitled to go back and 

vote upon every measure which has been passed or presented here 

since the time of his election up to this time. The question was the 

hardship of depriving a State of two Senators -upon this floor. I suppose the Senator will hardly claim that that hardship can be removed now so far as the past is concerned, but only as to the future. Now, 

I confess that the reference in that connection to the report of the 

Senate committee to which I alluded was entirely irrelevant and 

inadvertent, and I should have confined it entirely to the majority 

and minority report as recently made to the Honse of Representatives 

by its committee. But so far as the argument I was then making use of was concerned, I might safely concede t.o the gentleman that 

there were ten or fifteen thousand majority of the people of Louisiana, 

not as shown by their votes but of the population, who were in favor 

of the Kellogg government; it does · not touch this question now, 

ina.smnch as these reports recently made show that now a majority 

is opposed to the Kellogg government and consequently to Mr. Pinchback's admission here. 

Mr. WEST. Well, Mr. President, I did not intend to arraign the 

Senator. I merely referred to him as having illustrated a position 

which I wanted to controvert. He states now that he made it inadvertently and unintentionally and that it does not apply to the argument, and I will not say anything further in regard to his position, 

but I will merely go on and mainta.in my own. The Senator asks me whether the admission of Mr. Pinchback will 

repair the damage that has been done to my State for the la.st two 

years by the failure of the expression of his vote on various occasions. 

Unfortunately not. Even on a recent occasion here had Mr. Pinchback's vote been available for the State of Louisiana the inundation 

of the land and the destitution of that' people might have been 

avoided. Here last year out of the coffers and by the charity of this 

Government we fed the starving hundreds of thousands of people in 

Louisiana. Here once more the benign protection of the Government was appealed to on behalf of Louisiana to save her starving people 

from inundation and it failed because Mr. Pinch back was not here as a Senator from Louisiana to cast a vote. His one vote would have 

carried the measure; and it is upon these legal technicalities that 

the people of Louisiana are condemned to suffer, because they are not 

allowed to be heard. 

Now let me refer to this much landed report. This report proves 

just exactly what I sn,id in the outset, that so far as the bn,llots cast on that day were concerned the voice of the people was expressed in 

favor of the republican candidate. What does the report say f 

The colored population of that State outnUIIlbers the white, and in the last election the colored voters were aJmost unanimous in their support of the republican ticket. 

Corroborated by the testimony that I have quoted, corroborated by 

the testimony of a man familiar with the politics of that State, familiar with all the proceedings of that canvass even down to their absolute iniquity, he tells yon that in the main the colored men of that 

State cast their votes for the republican ticket, and h~ tells yon, and 

this report tells yon, thn,t they n,re largely in the majority in that State. 

So outraged did this committee feel in their examination, in their re- sen,rches, of the frauds perpetrated there in the name and on behalf 

of democracy, that they bmnd the whole proceeding a.s an infamous 

fmnd, and they say the attempt to foist McEnery on the people of 

Louisiana was contrary to the wishes, and contrary to the expressed 

wishes of the majority of that people. Senators are here upholding 

that fraud, unwittingly I admit, according to their conscientious con- victions of duty-they are here upholding a fraud to-day that was so pronounced by a committee of this body over two years ago. 

All the frauds are on the part of the republicans, says the Senator 

from Connecticut ; the whole claim of Kellogg and the republicans 

is ba.sed on infamous outrage and fraud. Sir, I base the right of the 

republicans upon the expressed will of the sovereigns of that State, 

who undon bted1y cast their votes for that man. There is something 

else in an election besides the returns. Something else constitutes an election. The primary cause of an election is the intention, and 

it is the expressed intention of the voter as to who shall be his choice 

that mainly constitutes an election. 

Now, Mr. President, let me say one thing in regard to the election 

laws of my State, in regard to the election law that preYailed and 

controlled the election of 1872. It was a law passed by the republi- can party, 1 will admit-passed to protect republicans from the scenes of violence and intimidation that were practiced in that State in the 

presidential election in 1868. It had accomplished its purpose. It was deprecated by republicans and by democrats, and there was a universal demand for its repeal or for its modific.ation. ~e governor 

of that State at that time had on three successive occa.swns, according to my recollection, appealed to the Legislature. to r~lax the stringency of those laws, and he had deprecated therr e~Is~nce. The 

Legislature, yielding to th~ justice of ~he dem!l'nd,_ y1el~g to t~e 

equities of the demand, dmmg a preceding sesswn J.nst ·pnor to t~1s 

election had modified and repealed that law and modified many ?fIts 

obnoxious features. Was that repealing act approved f Was 1t allowed to go into operation so as to give e~ther o~e party or ~he oth~r 

the same opportunity for an eq nal and fair electiOn ' No, Sir; but 1t was quietly kept for an opportunity for its use, a~ opportunity for its use which is well known to t'hls Senate, and certainly must be known 

to the new members here. According to the testimony in the report 

there was a law that had been denounced from one end of that State 

to the other as obnoxious, oppressive, and infamous, and denounced 

by the democratic party, according to thei.J; admission. Then what was their proceeding f They made ter.ms wtth tJ;te gov~rnor who had 

the manipulation of that law, and this very thing w~ch the.y had 

denounced, which they stated themselves was an· alliance :m-th an infamy that was worse than infamy itself, they hugged to therr bosom 

and th~y undertook to practice the frauds thn,t it :jillnitted. On the 

ratification of what is called the fusion ticket there was a mass meeting held and speakers from that stand announced that that law .W!lS 

to be used in favor .of the party that had for years denounced ~t . 

Ah they said, this is a glorious law; give .it to us now and we will ca~y the State for the democracy; thus prostituting all their pro~es­ sions of repugnance in order that success might follow such prostttution. What did one of the speakers say T 

Now I propose to tell the people of this city, and through the press represented 

here the people of the State, the simp let plain reason that I do not si~ these la~s. 

In the first pl.1>ce they make no materia.J. modification of the old election and regJs- tration laws. In the second plaoo, it was intended, when the repeal of these laws was forced through the Legislature, that instead of them Gene~ Grant should use his election l.'\w upon the people of this State; and then, bestdes that, the great mass of the people- · 

To whom was he speaking a.t the moment T To the democracy as represented at a mMs meeting in the city of New Orleansthe great mass of the people who have so long demanded the modification or re- peal of these laws have changed their minds. 

Ah, it makes a very great difference whose ox is gored. These were laws to be denounced when operated in the interest of the 

republican party, but 0! what sweet and wholesome things they were when they could be diverted to the fraudulent purposes of the 

democratic party! And I have just this one apology to J?ake to my 

friends in using that term: It was not the democratJC party of 

Louisiana that originated or perpetrated these frauds; it was n, few 

politicn,l adventurers there claiming the cloak of democracy to en- hance and anvance their own views. Through them n,nd by them 

the democratic masses of the State of Louisiana have been made to 

believe, and do this day believe, that they have been outraged. 

Here were the instructions sent out by the authorities having control 

of these election laws as to how proceedings were to be managed 

under them: STATE OF LOUISIANA, 

OFFICE OF STATE REGISTER OF VOTERS, 

Neto Orleans, October 24, 1872. 

8m: In addition ro the instructions contained in Circular No.8, from this office, 

you are instructedFirst. In counting the ballots aft-er election, count first the votes cast for presi- dentinJ. electors and members of Congress, keeping separate tally-lists on the Form 

No.1, provided for that purpose, and making up and completiniT the statement of votes for each poll upon Form No.1. Then close the oox, reseaY it, and proceed in a similar manner until all the national votes have been counted. Then proceed 

with the counting of the State and parish votes, be.•ning in mind the fact that the 

United States supervisors of election :md depu~ IIlMShhls have no right whatever to scrutinize, inspect, or be present at the counting of the State and parish votes. 

Here are the facts and here are the pra-ctices pursued in that case. The supervisors appointed by the United States judge were allowed 

to remain as witnesses of the count of nationn,l votes, and the moment 

it becn,me necessary to practice hocus-pocus on the boxes in order to 

get in democrats they told tho o gentlemen they had no legal right 

there. They excluded them from witnessing the count and they 

went on and oonsummated their fraud. The republicans were not 

a.llowed to have a man there. I assert it as a fact that there was not a republican officer of election throughout that whole State on that 

day except these supervisors of election, and they were excluded immedin,tely after the national vote was counted. Here is the answer n,gain from the registrar of voters of the State to a republican, the 

president of the State republican committee : ' 

STATE OF LoUISIANA, 

OFFICE OF STATE REGISTRATION OF VOTERS, 

New Orleans, November 2, 1872. 

SIR: In reply to your communication of date, I mnst respectfully decline com- pliance with your re.quest to appoint one commissioner of election at each polling 

place from the republican party at the general election to be holtl N o..-em ber 4, 1872. 

In regard ro your second request, I have the honor to inform you that the list of · polling places in this parish will be published in the official journal and other papers to-morrow. 3d instant. 

Very respectfully, B. P. BLANCHARD, State ~istrar of Voters and Supervisor of Registration Parish of Orleans. 

Ron. fj;,.~cSt~~n'Republican Oonunittee. 
60 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. MARon 15, 

In the fust place, there shall be no repnbli.can to witness the wrongs 

that we intend to perpetrate in this counting of the vote. In the 

next place, we do not pretend to let you know where the polling 

places are to be, either here or throughout the State, until the morn- ing of the election; and the testimony goes to show that they were scattered and located and placed in such positions that the poor, ignorant colored men had to travel twenty-odd miles in some instances 

to find where they had the opportunity to vote, while every democrat in the State knew exactly where to find his hole. But our voters were not to be deterred in that way; against all difficulties they 

asserted their rights and were not foiled by such practices. 

Now let us look at some of the marvelous mathematical results of _ these proceedings. In 1870, in sixteen parishes in my State, sixteen 

exclusively democratic parishes, the majority for the democratic 

ticket wa-s 7,300. Those are what are known as democratic strongh olds. Those same sixteen parishes in 1872, the election upon which 

this case turns1 gave 7,100 majority for the democrats. In · parishes exclusively democratic, the democratic vote fell off. The republicans 

gained ground in the democratic strongholds, but how did they figure 

out results in the republican strongholds Y Now I want to take my 

listeners to another part of the country, I want to take them to the 

thirty-six republican parishes of the State, and show the legerdemain 

that was practiced in order to give the democratic candidate a ma- jority. The remaining thirty-six parishes of tho State, our republican 

parishes, were all carried .by the republicans in 1870 by a majority of 

32,616, aad the democratic board in 1872 gave an actual aggregate 

majority of 1,500 for their ticket. In other words, at an election 

which showed large republican gains all over the United States, which 

showed in a certain portion of our State republican ~ains over the 

democrats in their own strongholds, an astonishing gaill of 34,000 in 

the opposite direction, with no assignable cause for the change, was claimed in the exclusively republican parishes of Louisiana by a board which admitted a republican gain in the exclusively democratic 

parishes. Where they did not need an opportunity to practice this 

legerQ.emain, this infamous practice upon the returns of an election, 

they lost ground; and where they did, they entirely turned the tables 

upon us. Can anybody believe that such was the actual result Y It 

is incredible. We can go into their own strongholds and legitimately 

defel}t them; they can come into ours and cheat us out of the expression of the will of our people. 

Reference has been made in this discussion to the forged returns of 

four parishes. It is admitted that they were forged. The opposite 

counsel did not deny it. The true returns would have given 4,000 

majority for the republican ticket. We lost .4,000 there. Six parishes were rejected by the fusion board, and it is a remarkable coincidence 

that they were all republican parishes. Those six parishes polled by 

the registration 4,500 majority for the republican ticket. There are 8,500 votes of democratic figures whistled down the' wind. 

But it is not upon the figuresofthereturnsthatirely; it is not to the 

figures of the returns that I ad vert; but I am calling the attention of 

the Senate and a.-sking them to go back to what they believe was the 

desire and the wish of the people, and I a-sk them if we are not in 

this situation, that for two years we have been defrauded of our legitimate political rights 

The Senator from Mary land [l\fr. WHYTE] plea.ded the admission of 

the democratic candidate for Congress at large to the floor of the 

House and to the privileges of membership jnst prior to the adjournment of that body, and cited it as evidence that in the judgment of 

that committee and in the judgment of that Honse he had received a . majority of the votes, and that consequently if the Congressman at 

large on the democratic ticket was elected the republican governor was defeated. Did he know the circumstances of that contest' Did 

be know that the republican contestant was a claimant for a seat on 

this floor, and that his appearance in that body somewhat jeopardized and imperiled his right to a seat here Y Did he know that the 

very committee which reported the fa.ct says that Pinchback failed 

to take any testimony within the time given in the resolution Y Did 

he not know that neither by himself nor by his counsel did he put in an appearance on the occasion Y Do n9t the committee in their report 

acumt that' They say: 

The present contest does not eHher necessarily or actually involve the so-called 

Louisia.n.a. question or settle the matter at issue pro or con of the legality of t.he 

present State government of Louisiana, as· will appear from the several oonsidera.. 

tions suggestea by the facts and testimony before the committee. 

First. The contestant was a. liberal republican candidate, and received in addition to the full strength of the vote of what was known as the " fusion party" a large republican vote. 

• There wa8 no liberal republican candidate for governor. This man was a liberal republican candidate and he did get some republican 

votes, and this very committee that reported to seat him reported 

that he got a large vote from the republican side, and that their determination in no way affects the main result as between Kellogg and 

McEnery. 

Let me here say a word in justice to the claimant for this seat. He 

has been held up here as a target for two years to be laughed at, re- ceiving all the shafts of scandal, calm:imy, rivalry, and j ealousy. ills personal character is not impugned, but there is something in 

his official character that should be known. He was selected as the 

republican candidate for Congress at large for that State in October, 

1872. He was voted for as a Congressman at large in November. He was taken up by his party friends and voted for ae Senator. in· January following. Is the fact that be was selected as the 

standard-bearer of his party on one occasion throughout the St.ate 

to be pleaded in detriment of his right to a seat here 'I On the con- trary, it shows the estimation in which he was held. He is spoken of as a,n adventurer who is willing to let· his foot rest on any soH 

that will give him pap and emolument. He is denounced for appearing in that House and be is condenrned for presenting himself h ere. Is he not, from what I have said, fully and entirely justified for this double two-horse act of his Y It is not his selection. He is here i.Jt 

obedience to the wish of the majority of the people of Louisiana, 

and certainly no reflection should be cast upon him, because in that case it would apply equally to any one of us who assumes the duty 

to which he aspires. 

Mr. SAULSBURY. Will the Senator allow me to ask him a ques- hlon' · 1\Ir. WEST. With pleasure. . Mr. SAULSBURY. I wish to inquire of the Senator if Judge Dibble, of Louisiana, was not one of the counsel who advocated the 

claim of the claimant to a seat in this body before the Committee on Privileges and Elections, and whether that judge bas not recently 

published a letter in which he declares that the existing government 

of Louisiana was obtained bv revolution 'I 

Mr. WEST. There is some truth in what the Senator states. The 

judge appeared on one side, but, like a good many other politicians, 

he is ready to jump on the other horse if he thinks he is going to win 

the r ace. I do not attach the slightest consequence to that any more than I do to the sudden somersaults that some people have made in 

other political contests. 

l\fr. MORTON. The democracy took him at once. .Mr. WEST. The democracy, as my friend suggests, were willing 

to adopt him immediately. 

We are referred also to the report made by the House committee, 

and told that that report says the Kellogg government exists in defi- ance of the wishes of the people of the State of Louisiana. Who are the people of the State Y Ar~ they the white-leaguers, the turbulent red-handed revolutionists, who override all law, unless that 

law is administered in their behalf and in their interest 'I No, sir, 

they are the law-abiding, the laboring people, who unforttmately 

have few to plead their cause or speak in their behalf. What uo · 

this committee say again on further investigation Y Their "best 

,judgment" is that Governor Kellogg was elected. "We find that 

many of the more moderate of his opponents concede his election." 

Yes, not only his moderate opponents but the very men who put np 

this trick in 1872-these so-called democrats. They laughin~ly have- told me over and over again how near they came to winmng ancl ·what a glorious thing it was. They laugh over it. They have thrown a State into turmoil, anarchy, revolution, and bloodshed for two 

years, and they laugh over the adroitness of their practices ancl how 

nearly they came to succeeding. 

l\Ir. CHRISTIANCY. I suppose my friend refers here to the report 

of the minority of the House committee' 

1\fr. WEST. I refer to the report of the minority, and I shall refer 

to the majority report, if the Senator will wait. 

Sixth. While. we believe Governor Kellogg to have received a majority of votes in 1872-

That is what the minority says; and that minority consists ofGEORGE F. HO.AR, 

W. A. WHEELER, 

WM. P. FRYE. 

They believe it. They have investigated the matter. The majority 

of the committee say in their report that they never did investigate that election; and what are their words' I am going to quote them 

in a few minutes. They said in their original report that they never investigated the election of 1872, and here in their supplemental 

report they express their opinion. 

l\Ir. CHRISTIANCY. Were they authorized to investigate it'¥ 

l\Ir. WEST. If they were not authorized they were not competent. to express an opinion about it. What did they do'¥ And here again I come back to the majority report. . l\Ir. DAWES. Does the Senator mean to state that they did in 

point of fact investigate that question ' 

l\Ir. WEST. I presume that that committee looked into the matter at large, aud I know that t~ey did take some testimony in regard to 

it . . That testimony unfortunately is not available, but it will be dem- onstrated by the testimony when it oomes out that democrats admitted throug;hout the Sta~e that Kel}o~g was elected, and I aJ?l t olcl 

that that testimony shows 1t. I apphect to the GovernmentPrrntin" 

Offioe, having been apprised of the names of the witnesses who te ti~ 

fi.ed in that case, but I could not get it; it wa not av:tilable at the moment. The maj?rity of the c?mmittee maiutained that Kellogg was n:ot elected ou his own color line,· and they never had the conrau·o to 

go out to the utmost verge of that color line and see whether t-h<7rc .:~ a majority of white or co~or:ed. voteTI'! in that State. Thi::; uu1jorit .. Y 

come back and say that It 1s ImposSible that the r epublicans coul d 

!Iave carried that S~ate, ue<_Ja~e ~he '':bite element were their Aqua! 

ill numbers .and thmr superwr ill mtel}Igence; once more falling back 

upon the IIDStake and the error of whlCh the Senator from Wiscou. in 

not now in this Chamber wa-s convicted, of saying that there are Uti 
1875. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. 61 

many white voters in that State aa colored. That is the ground again 

that they offer to us upon which the majority base their idea that 

Mr. Kellogg was defeated. 

1tfr. MOH.TON. Will the Senator allow me to read an extractfrom 

the report in reply to the question asked by the Senator from Massa.chusetts, [.Mr. DAWES,}if I do not interrnpt him 

Mr. WEST. Certainly. Mr. MORTON. I read from the report of Me srs. Hoar, 'Wheeler, 

and Frye: 

We were unable to make any direct and thorough investigation of the election 

of 187:1. It is apparent from the facts stated in the report of the Senate committee 

(Senate r'eport third ses ion Forty-second Congre s, ro. 457) that the action of the olticin 1.4 was so t.aintecl with fraud and illegality that the action of neither of the 

p :·etendel retuening boards or the certificates of the local el ction officers can be r ".Jlie. l o...t in tbo leust as a basis for making up an opinion as to the true result. In- deed this is conceded by several of the most intelligent of the conservative wit- nesses. It would be impossible at this distance of trme, and probably at any time, to go behind the r eturns and ascertain the true expression of the people's will. But oal' best j utlgment is that Governor Kellogg wus elected. W e find that many 

of the more moderate of hi opponents concede Iiis election. There is no argument to show the election of McEnery which is not met by one equally strong in proof 

of tbe election of Kellogg. 

I call trhe attention of the Senator to what follows: 

The registrationAnd mark you, the registration was exclusively in the hands of the 

appointees of Governor Warmoth, who had joined the democratic 

party, and every one of the election officers throughout the State was either a democrat or a republican who ha.d deserted and gone over to 

the democratic partyThe registration shows a consillerable majority of colored voters, and it is not denied that Kellotrg recei\ed substantially all the colored votes, beside some thousand whites. Taking the democratic r<5turns in 1872 for all the parishes except four, for which t.he returns are conceded to be forgeries, and six othel'B from which 

the.y threw out the returns for fraud and violence, and get at the true vote in those par1shes in any way you can, by comparin,. the vote with the registration of white 

and colored voter , or by takin~ the repu'i'>lican and democratic votes at the election of this year, and it gives K ellogg a majority of several thousand. 

1tfr. DAWES. My inquiry of the Senator from Louisiana was wholly for information. I was aware that the testimony taken by 

the committee waa not accessible, but I had a conference with some members of the committee; and I knew or supposed what their opinion was. I agree with the Senator from Louisiana that it was the 

opinion, I think of a majority of the committee, that Governor Kellogg was elected. I do not think that they made any investigation 

of t.he facts as to that election; I did not suppose they had, and 

therefore I made the inquiry of the Senator. But their opinion as to the election of the rest of the ticket is quite another question. 

:Mr. MORTON. I will state to the Senator from Ma sachusetts 

that I understood from one member of the committee that in the course of the cross-examina.tion of some democratic witnesses before 

the committee in regard to certain parishes in 1872 the result of that 

cross-examination in regard to those two parishes waa to show such a change as would elect Kellogg, but that there was no direct exam- ination made for that purpose. It came out incidentally in the cross- examination of democratic witnesses. 

Mr. DAWES. I cannot speak with any confidence as to how far the 

investigation went. I think it will be found when the evidence is 

published that they took no testimony at all in reference to the election of 1872; but that it was the opinion of a majority of that com- mittee, based upon such information as they could obtain in the matter, that Mr. Kellogg w~s elected governor: but they came to an opposite conclusion as to the rest of the ticket. 

lli. WEST. Whatever apprehensions I mi~ht have had at the 

commencement of making some points, I certamly must express my 

acknowledgment for the assistance given me by my friend frolll 

Massachusetts and my friend from Indiana. The Senator from Massachusetts has had a more favorable opportunity than myself of knowing what information was elicited by this committee, a m~mber of 

which waa one of his colleagues in the other body. All that I know 

in regard to it is the fact, communicated to me by persons who were cognizant and heard of and heard that testimony, that this committee solicited an expression of opinion from among intelli~ent men of 

both parties in that State aa to how the election resulted m 1872, and 

that while republicans were in no hesitation or manner of doubt as to the result, there were some fair-minded democrats who repudiated 

the cheat that was practiced upon them1 and who admitted to this 

committee that in their opinion the State had gone republican. If an expression of opinion is to be cited adversely to us, we certainly 

must be allowed to use those same expressions of opinion when they 

redound to our benefit. 

I have not had the opportunity of looking at the remarks of the 

Senator from 1\Iaryland, [.Mr. WHYTE,] who spoke on Saturday, but 

I would call the attention of the Senate to one of his presumptions of 

fact that is scarcely substantiated by the record. He says that as the Senate had upon the testimony refused the electoral vote of 

Louisiana in 1873, we are now stultifying ourselves by admitting the 

representative of that State, or that we would stultify ourselves; 

that the decision to-day in favor of Pinchback would controvert and 

annul the decision of the Senate on a previous occasion as to the .electoral vote. 

1\Ir. WHYTE. Will the Senator allow me to correct him Y 

Mr. WEST. Certainly. 

Mr. WHYTE. I did not say that the Senate had acted 11pon te timony wheu it exchY:led that vote. I stated the fact _that, owing tl~ 

the condition of affairs in Louisiana, both Houses, actmg separately,, had each determined that the electoral vote of Louisiana shoulu no 

be counted at all. Mr. WEST. And that if we now received it we should Le stultifyin()' ourselves. Perhaps I do not use exactly the wordt> of the Senat~r, but I think that was ills idea. 

0 u the 1Oth of February, 1873, the Committee on Privileges ~nd Elections of this body made an entirely separate report from what 1s known as theCarpenterreport. Tlleymadeit on tlle electoral vote of the State 

of Louisiana, investi~ation into the validity of which h::d been con- fided to them. The lJarpenter report was not made until the 23d of 

February. On the lOth of February, 1873, they camo to this conclusion: 

We find that the official returns of the election of electol'B from the various 

parishes of Louisiana have never been coll.llted by any body having authority to COlllltthem. 

The Senate resolved: 

That, all the objections havin~ been considered, no electoral vote purporting to be that of the State of Louisiana oe counted. 

Certainly-the Senator will not contend that that is res adjudicata. 

Certainly he will not contend that the Senate did not reserve to 

itself the competency upon any future occasion, on a subsequent 

measme, to examine into the returns and · the facts. \Vhat would 

have been the action of the Senate and House of Repre entatives on the 12th day of February, 1873, under the solemn sanction of the 

Constitution to declare what the votes of the people of the Uniteu 

States were for President had there been such an issue as that presented f Had the issue between President Grant and 1tfr. Greeley 

turned on the electoral vote of Louisiana, would you ha.ve said there was no return 'f Would you have shut the door and said, " Here are 179 votes on one side and 179 votes on the other; anarchy prevails, 

and there is no government in the United State ," as you assume to say now that there is no governmentin the State of Louisiana No, sir; 

you would have held possession of this Government by all the power 

of the bayonets of tp.e United States until you had examined into 

the right and wrong of this case and set the right right and con- demned the wrong. Would you have remitted your Government to _anarchy, confusion, distraction, and violence, such aB we have had in 

Louisiana, simply because you had no return before you Y No, ~ir; 

you would have examined the presumptions of the case to begin 

with; you would have gone into the facts; and you never would 

have been satisfied until you knew how every man in that State, 

black and white, had voted. What you would have done for this 

country at large, what you would have done for this confederacy of 

States, I claim now that you shall· do the same jnstt.ce to us. We 

have been defrauded out of our rights. We show you the villainous 

and infa.mous conspiracy to defraud the republican voters of my 

State, and you tell us we have got no rights. We have a right to 

look to our republican friends in this body for sympathy and justification and support when a.ll the presumptions of the ca-se go to show 

that the republican party was in the ascendancy on that occaaion. We have a right to appeal to you in om· distress. We have been outraged there. Republicans have bee~+ killed by the hundreds in that 

Stat.e for maintaining that their cause was successful in 1872, and 

you put us off with the cold proposition that the only result and con- clusion we can come to is that one board was legal and had no returns 

and another board was illegal and had forged returns. . ·what will be the result to us if your verdict is against us to-day ¥ 

It will leave us but a continuation of this interminable, inconsequential Louisiana case. Refuse to admit this man, and the word goes 

out once more to the country that the Kellogg government is a fraud, 

and agitation in that region is renewed, crime and violence run riot 

there, White Leagues muster, and your President is .called upon once more by the strong hand to preserve the peace. Can he do it f Is he 

competent to do it w heu his judgment is reversed by this deliberative 

assembly f What have we got to expect there 'I Not satisfied with 

keeping us in that condition for two long years, not satisfied with 

holding us under the ban of prejudice and oppression, are you to 

refuse now, when you know the facts and the circumstances of this 

case, to a-djudicate and to give us peace T 

Where is the democrat in this Chamber with the fao0ts before him 

who can convince you, republicans, that that State went democratic 

in 1872 t He will convince you of nothing except the existence of a "gigantic fmud" and an attempt to cheat the people out of their 

votes. I ask you again, can there be any other choice but one of 

two ¥ When only two men are running for the same office you must 

either admit one or the other. You .can either ao0knowledge that 

Kellogg is elected or you must have our State go into the hands of 

the democrats. That is the platform on which I wish to stand. That 

is the logical result of the vote of this Senate. It will be either an admission on the part of the Senate that the republicans are entitled 

to the government of that State or it will be the verdict of the Senate 

that the democrats are, because that will be the practical result. 

Mr. President, I said at the outset that I had not expected to sa~r 

anything on this subject to-day. I have gone over much of the ground 

that has been trod over and over again1 and were I a Senator from 

any other State except the State of Lomsiana I would not have vexed 
62 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. MARCH 16 

the ear8 of the Senate to-day. It has been incumbent upon me, however, to say something, and I have felt it incumbent upon me to repel 

in the strongest terms of which I am capable the char~e that there- publicans are the only fraudulent manipulators of electwn machinery 

in that State; and I charge home to the democrats that they conspired 

and franclulently deceived the people, and have deceived the demo- cra ts of Louisiana as well as tho democrats throughout the country. 

Mr. MORTON. If there be no other Senator desiring to speak 

now, I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of execu- tive business. 

The motion was agreed to ; and the Senate proceeded to the con- sideration of executive business. After twenty minutes spent in 

executive session the doors were reopened, and (at two o'clock and 

forty minutes p. m.) the Senate adjourned. 

IN SENATE. 

TUESDAY, March 16, 1875. 

Prayer by Bishop GILBERT IIA. VEN, of the Methodist Episcopal 

Church. 

'l'he Journal of yesterday's proceedings was read and approved. 

_ AGRICULTURAL REPORT FOR 1874. 

The VICE-PRESIDENT laid before the Senate the report of the 

Commissioner of .!griculture for the year 1874; which was referred 

to the Committee on A~-riculture, and ordered to be printed. Mr. ANTHONY subrmtted t he following resolution: 

Resolved, That twelve hundred and fifty additional copies of the repoit of the 

Commissioner of Agriculture for 1874 be printed for the use of the Senate. 

Mr. SHERMAN. How can that be done T 

Mr. ANTHONY. We can print the cost of $500. We did that last 

year. 

Jl.fr. SHERMAN. It will not co&t more than $500 then 7 

Mr. ANTHONY. That is the estimate. 

The resolution was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to. 

PAPERS WITHDRAWN. 

On motion of 1\fr. MITCHELL, it was 

Ordered, That Mrs. D. J. Browne have leave to withdraw her petition and papers from the files of the Senate. · 

SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA. 

The Senate resumed the consideration of the following resolution, 

submitted by Mr. MORTO ,. on the 5th instant : 

Resolved, That P. B. S. Pinchback be admitted as a Senator from the State of 

Louisiana. for the term of six yeru.'S, beginning the 4th day of March, 1873. 

The pending question being on the amendment of Mr. EDMUNDS 

to insert the word "not" before "admitted." 

Mr. ALCORN. Mr. President, it will be remembered that I was one of the committee that joined in the majority report two years 

since declaring the fact that there was no legal government in the 

State of Louisiana. The investigations of that committee were patient and I think they were impartial, and in my judgment the 

conclusions arrived at cannot well be controverted. I now affirm everything that that report asserts as true. I declare that in my 

judgment the election which resulted in the installation of Kellogg 

and his Legi1>lature was a fraud; that it was an organized fraud on both sides ; ~ much of a fraud as the parties were capable o_f making 

it. Hence it was that I concurred with the majority of the commit- t ee in declaring that the election was not entitled to the consideration of Congress; that it should be disregarded; that the matter should be referred again to the people of Louisiana; that a commis- sion should be organized by Congress for the purpose of holding an election there; and that it would be the duty of this Government to see to it that the people of Louisiana had an opportunity of expressing their will untrammeled with regard to the government which they proposed should be established over them. 

For two years I have sought to follow up this idea; and dnrino- all 

that period of time the chances for consummating that which fbelieved to be the remedy for the wrongs that had been committed 

have grown less and less. To-day there is no hope that anything of 

that sort can be done. _The question of a new election now may be 

regarded as postponed forever. No one will attempt hereafter to introduce any proposition for a new election in Louisiana. When I last addresseu the Senate on this subject I stated that if 

the Senate would recognize formally the Kellogg government, notwithstanding my judgment with regard to the election, I would take 

the formal recognition by the Senate as an adjudication of the case, 

and would then stand prepared to act upon the credentials of Pinchback, regarding the question of the Kellogg government as fixed, ns settled for me and for the Senat-e. 

I have been somewhat persistent in endeavoring to induce the 

Senate to begin at the right pla{le in this Kellogg matter; first, with regard to the question aa to whether the government waa legal, 

whether in truth there was a government there, and if a ~overnment, 

there whether that government elected a Senator; and if a Senator, 

who that Senator was. But the Senate has not seen proper to commence where my judgment suggested the propriety of commencing. 

It has ignored the question of the Kellogg government and has come directly to the question of the admission of Pinchback. 

I have affirmed here that in my judgment Pinchback was about 

to be dealt with unjustly by this presentation of the question ; that 

the issue is not properly formed; that it is not properly joined; that 

the issue is demmTable in law, and in chancery it is demurrable for multifariousness. We are now here to-day tryin~, in the arguments of the case, the Kellogg government upon an 18sue pre ented as to the ·admission of Pinchback. I stated to the Senate that I 

could not vote for the admission of Pinchback when the real is ue of" the case was upon the recognition of the Kellogg government; 

but since I made that statement to the Senate, since I assumed that 

position, some action has been taken with regard to this question. 

The House of Representatives, the popular branch of Congress, has 

1·ecognized the Kellogg government. My friend on my right [Mr. 

BOGY] suggests that they also recognized the McEnery government 

indirectly, for the reason that they admitted at the same time mem- bers of Congress who had been candidates upon the McEnery ticket 

for the State at large. Well, sir, I will not undertake to reconcile this action of the House of Representatives. I presume, however, 

looking to subsequent events, that it was somewhat in the interest 

of compromise; that, the Kellogg men having held their seats in 

Congress for two long years less three days, now in the interest of 

compromise the House turns them out and puts in the Represent a- tives of the McEnery government; and I a.m told too that the sitting 

members, the usurping members, as they may now be called, voted 

to turn themselves out and put in the McEnery Representative . This was very polite. This showed that they were up to the spirit 

of compromise that is now sUITounding all this Kellogg question. So the House of Representatives went away in good humor. They 

had recognized the Kellogg government as the legal government 

and they had admitted the McEnery Representatives to legislate 

for the benefit of their constituents during the period of forty-eight 

hours just before the close of the session and just in time to get 

their pay. But there was more than that done. The recent election in Louisi- ana occUITed four months and a half ago. The returning-board sat 

counting the returns for full three months of time. For three months 

they sat manipulating the returns and cou:n.tin~ to see who was elected. The time for the assembling of the LegisL'l.ture came, but 

still the count went on. I will not undertake to recite the various 

charges and mutations of charge that charaderize this government 

in its recent presentation to the country. Committees have been sent by Congress to New Orleans; and finally a commission has been or~anized by the consent of the K~llogg government and the aggrieved party, and has taken up the returns and carried them to the 

city of New York, where to-day they are being counted. They are bein~ counted by a commission unknown to the laws of Louisiana; 

and It is agreed between the party aggrieved and the party in power 

that the Kellogg government shall be recognized and that this com- mission shall suggest to Kellogg's goverument who are the true representatives in Louisinna, and that when this suggestion is ma{].e the 

members shall be entitled ·to their certificates upon the suggestion of 

strangers to the law of Louisiana, and that upon this recommendation 

and upon these certificates those members shall be admitted to their 

seats, and that then Kellogg, the then recognized governor, shall call 

the Legislature of Louisiana together, and that the Legisl,ature shall 

proceed to do whatt To make more laws, to undo perhaps some of 

the laws that have been enacted and that are now in force, but finally 

to elect a Senator to the Congress of the United States, and when t~t Senator comes, I ask with what better grace does be come, with 

wliat stronger warrant of authority does he come, than that warrant 

held now in the hands of Pinchba{lk T A Legislature is to be organized after this style, a Legislature fixed up under a compromise between citizens aggrieved and citizens who stood content, outside the 

forms of law, without regard to the constitution and laws, in the 

interest of peace and harmony and good-will and compromise. I trust 

that when so organized it will meet the approbation of the people of 

the State of Louisiana; that that government, having reached the level 

o;f despair, may rise from that level to the majesty of a State government entitled to the respect of the people whom it pretends to govern or is entitled to govern. 

Now when the House of'Representatives, the popular branch of 

Congress, that branch representing the people of the United States, 

haa recognized the Kellogg government, and when the people of 

Louisiana, the aggrieved people, have recognized that gov:ernment - for the consummation will be made before the Senate adjournsand the Kellogg government by the consent of the people will be 

recognized, when all that attaches and appertains to the peoplo ha, been settled, adjusted, compromised, what is left for the Senate to do f 

Mr. DAWES. Will the Senator yield to me for a moment Y 

Mr. ALCORN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DAWES. I do not know that it is incumbent on me to vindicate the action of the House of Representatives; but as I voted myself 

for both propositions which the Senator from Mississippi has undertaken to construe as a recognition of the Kellogg government and of 

the McEnery ~~~~rnment by way of compromise, I may be allowed 

to say that It · the Senator miliconstrues the resolution adopted 

by the Honse of Representatives. I did not understand it myself