1873. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. 125 

Suppose an act of Congress forfeited an election to the Senate procured by bribery, and punished for felony whoever should obtain an election by bribing members of a legislature. Should Mr. CALDWELL 

be indicted under such a statute, it must be alleged in the indictment, 

an(l proved on the trial, that his election did take place, and was so procured a.nd brought about. ,In such a ca~e, no counsel would trifle 

with the court ·by saying his client must be acquitted because there was no election or only a null election. Yet here we sit~ hesitating 

whether in truth the historical event has happened which would be 

the very foundation of the indictment under the statute I ha\e supposed. 

But another puzzle is given us. The House, in judging of elections, 

throws out bribed votes, and its power to judge is in the same clause 

of the Constitution with ours; trrgo, both Houses must judge by 

the same ·modes and to the same extent. The pioneer in this 

doctrine is the honorable Senator from Georgia, [Mr. NORWOOD.] 

Two Senators have adopted it in debate, but iu the "views of the 

minority" in the case of Mr. CLAYTON, it appears first. Let us consider it. Suppose the Supreme Court had been charged by the 

Constitution to jud~e, in respect both of the Senate and the House, of 

the elections, qualifications, and returns of members; it would not 

be argued that in each Honse the judgment must be by the same rules; it would be plain that each House must be judged by the 

rules applicable to that one. Suppose in this same clause of the 

Constitution the Supreme Court had been empowered to judge of 

the appointment, qualifications, and commissions of its owu mem- bers ; surely the court could not judge by the same methods and to 

the same extent as the Honse of Representatives. Suppose, using 

the very words of the Constitution, you give power to the Regents 

of the Smithsonian Institution to judge of the election of members 

of that board ; they could not proceed as the House proceeds. The 

power to judge given by the Constitution is attributed to each Honse 

11mtatis mutandis. Do lawyers doubt this 7 It is attributed to each 

House for the use of each House, taking into account the difference 

inherent in the two Houses, and in the thing they have to do. 

Were this otherwise, tho result would be an absurdity. It is not 

possible to assimilate or identify our province of judging with that 

of the House. The House inquires, first, were the· officers of election 

legally authorized and qualified t This is the very first inquiry addressing itself to the House. Secondly, were those who voted legally 

authorized and qualified t Both these things, we are told by the ad va- cates of the pending resolution, we cannot do. These are tlle very things we may not do. First, we cannot inquire whether the presiding officers 

who conducted the election in the legislature, were legally elected or empowered; we are est-opped to so inquire; and, secondly, we cannot 

inquire whether the men who voted, were verily members or voters. 

The House inquires, were those who voted residents; were they citizens; if claiming to be naturalized, were their naturalization-papers 

fraudulent or forged; were they emitted the day before the election 

and stained with the color of age from the dregs of a coffee-pot, a~ 

thousands of naturalization-certificates have been; were those who 

voted twenty-one years of age; were they registered t Such are the 

inquiries in the House, where an entire poll may be thrown out, or a 

poll may be sifted to find, in the case of each individual elector, was he qualified and entitled to vote. When my friend from Maryland 

[Mr. liA?.IILTON] yesterday, by a short, jerky question, staggered 

the argument of the Senator from Ohio, [Mr. THURMAN,] the Senator 

from Indiana came to the rescue with a suggestion. He said the Constitution requires that electors for Representatives in Congress shall 

have the qualifications of electors of the most numerous branch of 

the legislature in the State; and, therefore, as I understood him, (the r emarks do not appear in the RECORD this morning,) the conclusion 

is, that the House may inquire into the qua1ifications of electors voting for its members, because the Constitution says that certain qualifications may be reqnired. I thank the Senator for this contribution. 

It proves all I am arguin~ at this point, namely, that, by the mandate 

of the Constitution, the House, in judging of the election of its mem- bers, proceeds to inquire of matters touching which we are con- fessedly estopped. We need hardly go further for answers to the 

argument that the power to judge, being conferred on the House and on the Senate in one and the same clause, it must, therefore, be in 

each House a power identical in its methods, its applications, its objects, and its results. 

Then, again, we are told that" fraud vitiates everything," and therefore we may undo corrupt elections. As a popular saying, this trite 

maxim is of some value; as a legal saying, it is far from accurate. Another well-worn saying is, that ''a pint is a pound, the world around." 

It depends, however, upon the kind of pint, and it depends upon the 

kind of fraud, and npon other circumstances. As an offset to this 

maxim, I offer another: Fraud vitiates nothing, except in the forum 

and in the proceeding in which it can legally be tried. Inability to 

right a wrong in a particular way, may be deplorable, but, if it can be righted in another way, the case is not so bad after all. 

My honorable friend from Vermont, [Mr. MORRILL,] gloomy in his 

views of this case, as I must think he is peculiar, says: 

By our action we must either disapprove or approve of the means by which Mr. 

CALDWELL secured his election, and, as I am nnable to do the latter, I shall briefly gi.-e the reasons that will govern my vote. . 

So ppose :Mr. CALDWELL were charged with murder or arson, and we were asked upon that ground to decide that no election took place in 

Kansas, could we not refuse so to decide without approving murder or 

arson f Suppose Mr. CALDWELL offered many bribes to members, and 

they were all spurned, it would hardly be said that the election was void, and yet, if we refused to say so, the Senator from Vermont might warn us that we were approving of offers to bribe. 

Mr. President, I believe the Senate to be weary; I am not weary ; 

and I should be glad, could I expect attention, to present some other urguments in this case. 

Mr. STEW .ART. Would the Senat-or prefer an adjournment at this 

time, so that he may continue his argument to-morrow t 

Mr. CONKLING. I will abide the pleasure of the Senate-glad to 

proceed, or willing to adjourn. 

Mr. STEW ART. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive business. 

The motion was agreed to. 

EXECUTIVE SESSIOX. 

The Senate proceeded to the consideration of executive business. 

.After fifteen minutes spent in executive session, the doors were re- opened; and the Senate (at four o'clock and thirty-fivo minutes p.m.) 

adjourned. 

IN THE SENATE. 

THURSDAY, March 201 1873. 

Prayer by Rev. J. P. NEWMAN, D. D. 

The journal of yesterday's proceedings was read and approved. 

PRINTING OF DOCUMEI\TTS FOR THE SENATE. 

Mr . .Al..TTHONY. I desire to offer a resolution. I do not know bnt 

the latter clause of it may come under the objection raised by the 

Senator from Connecticut, [Mr. FERRY,] and if so I will not press that 

part of it. It is a resolution that will cause no expense and no sitting 

during the recess, but will give us some information valuable for us to have, and will enable us to get it more easily, if we adopt it under 

the authority of the Senate, inasmuch as it must be done by a subordinate officer and cannot be done by a committee, than if it is merely 

applied for by the committee. 

The resolution was read, as follows : 

Resolved, That the Committee on Printing be inl!tructed to inquire into the num- bers of bills, reports, and public documents printed for the use of the Senate, and 

their distribution, and to report what changes, if any, are necessary; also, into the 

practicability of supplying the public with tbese publications at their cost, with the 

addition of the postage to be paid upon them; and to report on the same. 

Mr . .ANTHONY. I do not know but that the latter clause may fall 

within the ruling of the Chair. If so I will withdraw it. 

:Mr. FERRY, of Connecticut. I think the Senator had better withdraw that portion of it. 

Mr . .ANTHONY. Very well. The Senator has no objection to the 

first part. 

Mr. FERRY, of Connecticut. No, sir. 

Mr. ANTHONY. I modify the resolution by striking out the latter 

part of it, beginning with the word" also." 

The VICE-PRESIDENT. The Senator from Rhode Island modifies 

his resolution. The Secretary will report it as modified. 

The chief clerk read a~ follows : 

R~>.solved, That the Committee on Printing be instructed to inquire into the num- bers of bills, reports, and public documents printed for the use of the Senate, and 

their distribution, and to report what changes, if any, are necessary. 

The resolution was considered by unanimous consent and agreed to. 

HOUR OF MEETING. 

:Mr . .ANTHONY. I move that the daily hour of meeting of the 

Senate be eleven o'clock a.m., until otherwise ordered. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Say ten o'clock. 

Mr. ANTHONY. I accept that, if it is agreeable to the Senate. I 

will say ten o'clock, if the Senator from Ohio prefers. 

Mr. SHERMAN. We want to get through with business as soon as possible. · 

Mr. CARPENTER. Say half past ten. 

1\Ir. ANTHONY. It is suggested that the hour of meeting be fixed 

at half past ten. I accept that. I want to be agreeable to all Senators, if I can. The VICE-PRESIDENT. The Senator from Rhode Island modifies 

his motion so as to make the hour of daily meeting ten o'clock and 

thirty minutes a. m. The question is on the motion as modified. 

The motion was agreed to. 

RULES LIMITL"{G DEBATE. 

The VICE-PRESIDENT. If there be no further resolutions, the 

Chair will call up the unfinished business of yesterday, upon which 

the Senator from New York [Mr. CoNKLING] is entitled to the floor. 

1\Ir. WRIGHT. · In the absence of the Senator from New York, who 

is not in his place, I offer the following additions to the rules of the 

Senate, and ask that they be printed and referred to the Committee 

on Rules: 

Ruolved, That the following be added to the rules of the Senate: 

RULE-. No debate shall be in order unless it relate to or be pertinent to tho 

question before the Senate. RULE-. Debate may be closed at a.ny time upon any bill or measure, by the 

order of two-thirds of the Senators present, after notice of twenty-four hours to th~t effect. RULE-• .All bills shall be placed upon the calendar in tboir ordsr, and shall lJe 
--

126 CONGRESSIONAL l~EOORD. l\fARCH 20, 

disposed of in such order unless postponed by the order of the Senate. All 

special orders are prohibited except by unanimous consent; and bills postponed shaJJ, nnless otherwise ordered, go to the foot of the calendar. 

Mr. THURMAN. Let that resolution lie over. The VICE-PRESIDENT. The Senator from Ohio objects to the 

consideration of the resolution. Does the Senator ask to have it 

printed¥ 

1\fr. THURMAN. It had better be printed. 

M.r. WRIGHT. My motion was that it be printed and referred to 

the Committee on Rules. 

Mr. THURMAN. No; let it lie over. The VICE-PRESIDENT. Objection being made to its consideration, the Tesolution will lie over until to-morrow. The order to print 

will be made if there be no objection. 

ORDER OF BUSINESS. 

Mr. MORTON. There are several Senators who are expected to 

speak on the paneling question. The Senator from New York [Mr. Co~KLING] is entitled to the :floor, but he is not here. There are others, who are expecting to speak, that I do not see now. Perhaps 

there is some Senator who is prepared to go on now. l.Ir. CARPENTER. I move that the Senate take a recess until one 

o'clock. 

Mr. ANTHONY. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive business. 

Mr. CARPENTER. I will yield to that motion. 

Mr. HAMILTON, of Maryland. If I thought the vote could bo 

taken on this question now I would say n.othing upon it; but if 

there is no gentleman ready to speak upon it, I have a few suggestions 

to make in respect to the subject, and I will make them now. I have no desire and would not detain the Senate under other circnmstances ; 

bnt if no one else claims the :floor, I will say what I have to say uow. l.Ir. ANTHO}l~. I withdraw my motion. 

The VICE-PRESIDENT. The motion for an executive session is 

withdrawn, and the Senate resumes the consideration of the unfini:lhed business of yesterday. 

ELECTION OF SENATOR CALDWELL. 

The Senate resumed the consideration of the following resolution, 

snbmit.ted by 1\Ir. MORTON on the 6th instant: 

RPsolved, That ALEXANDER CALDWELL was not duly and legally elentec.l to a. seat in the Senate of the United States by the legislature of th.e State of Kansas. 

Mr. HAMILTON, of Maryland. J,Ir. President, this is one of the 

most important questions, I think, thn.t has been presented for our consideration since we have had a history as a nation, and it presents 

itself as well in a political as in a moral point of view. 

This grave question presents itself in a double aspect. In one aspect, 

it is wholly a matter of f~:~.ct, having no personal relation whatever 

with any one involved in or connected with it; in the other, it is 

essentially a personal matter. In the former, it is proposed to set aside 

n,n election; in the latter, it is proposed to purge the Senate of a member considered not fit or proper to be- in it, by expelling him. In 

the former, a mere majority only is required to effect it; in the latter, a vote of two-thirds is necessary. 

The importance and significance of the difference between the two 

are at once seen. It is provided in the Constitution of the United States thatEach House shall be the judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its own members. 

And, again, thatEach House may, with the concurrence of two. thirds, expel a member. 

In th8 exercise of lihe former power, we are to judge; and that infers, 

I take it for granted, that we are to judge of the facts as presented 

upon the case, and determine their force and effect. In the exercise 

of the latter power, so unlimited is it in terms, that we may exercise 

it without a reason or. cause, although policy and every sense of right 

would dictate, if they did not absolutely imply, that it should never be capriciously, wantonly, or unjustly exercised. 

It is said, and truly said, that the same powers are conferred upon 

this body and the House of Representatives to judge of the elections 

of their re pective members. Both Houses are addressed at the same time and in the same language in that clause of the Constitution 

which grants these powers. But still is it not apparent that this 

power, so granted, to judge of the election of membe1·s, must be qualified or applied differently, as the constituencies of each House, if I may so speak, are so entirely and mdically different'! The exercise of this 

power, I admit, will be the same in both cases where the same condition of things exists. When we get beyond this, and the very elements of the election change, the application of this power may also 

change. 

Members of the House of Representatives are chosen directly by 

the people; Senators are chosen by the legislatures of.the States. The 

Constitution is explicit here: 

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each 

State, chosen by the legislature thereof for six yean;. 

Each person, therefore, in voting for a member of the House is brought in his segregated and individual capacity in direct relation to that 

body. In elections, however, to this body, the legislature, not the 

members of the legislature, but the legislature a,s a political entity, as an organized body representing in this very act of ci.Joosing Semttors 

the sovereign power and dignity of the State, and as the solemn act of 

the State itself, is brought only in direct relation to this body, not 

the individual members constituting the legislature, but the legislature a-s an organized power speaking for the State and announcing the 

action of the State. Each State shall have two Senators. Therefore 

the action of the legislature can be the only subject fo: the judgment 

of this chamber in determining the election of Senators. And no doubt, under this power, we may inquire whether it was a legislature 

that chose a Senator or whether it was not some unauthorized bo<ly; 

whether, a..s in the case of Asher and Robbins, the legislature ha<l the 

power at the time the Senator was chosen to do it, and whether it wall 'done according io the mode and manner as prescribed by law. 

The House of Representatives can equally inquire into the fad 

whether the persons voting for members of that House had the right 

to vote, but then the inquiry may extend far beyond this as the re- lations between the voter and the House will justify it. 

The difference in the application of this power to the act of a legislature in electing a Senator, and that of a person in electing a mem- ber of the House, may be plainly illustrated. In the case of the 

election of a member of the House, the qualifications of the voter can unquestionably be inquired into; but does any one pretend to 

claim the power that we can inquire into the qualifications of mem- bers of a legislature in order to judge and determine whether a choice of Senators has been made by legally qualified members. 

Can such a power as ibis be admitted for a moment to be vested in 

this body 'f Never l And why not Y Because, in the first place, the 

legislature is a sovereign body, and referred to in the Constitution as the only body which can exerci e the right of choosing Senators; an<l 

because, next, the legislature is the creature of the constitution of 

the State, which is an expression of the supreme will of the State, 

and organize<! with the power to judge of the qualifications of its own members, and 'Which, too, as a primal law in repre entative government, is indispensable to the political entity and moral being of 

any State. No other power can. infringe upon this right and the 

body-politic remain an independent and free State. Allow any other 

power to determine who are to constitute a legislative body, and it is 

the end of a free representative government. 

Concede to this body the power to inqui.re as to who shall con- stitute a State legislature, anu therefore to determine who are the 

members composing it, and you yield at once your whole form of government. Admit this power, and you make this body the judge, not 

only of tho election of its own members, but the judge of the election of members of other bo<lies intended to be of equal power and 

dignity within their flphere with our own body in its sphere and to 

be as free as we ourselves are, and with as full powers of self-protection as we ourselves possess as a legislative body. I think it must be3 

observed that there is a manifest qualification of the power wheu 

applied to the act of a legislature as contradistinguished from the individual voter for a Representative to the other House. Therefore, as we cannot inquire into the qualification of a member of a legi lature, how is it that we can go behind its expressed will and inquire 

into the motives of members to ascertain the reason for it It is the 

solemn act of a body-politic, and it is the act, the result of their ex- pressed will, that is the only effective thing, and thaG which alone can be considered, and not the segregated conduct of individuals. I can- not, therefore, entertaining these views, vote for the resolution reported 

by the committee declaring in substance the election to be void. 

Always disinclined, as I am, to the exercise of any power not clearly 

granted, I always regret the exercise of any doubtful power, and have 

always hitherto opposed it; and, conceding for the sake of the argument that this is even a doubtful power now attempted to be exer- cised in setting aside this election, I am, from its very extraordinary 

character, and from what I apprehend to be its dangerous tendencies, 

the more resolutely opposed to it. Why not resort to a power we do 

possess in this case, the power of expulsion t Why not, rather than 

to a doubtful power, at all events a power that is contested on this 

:floor a-s no power at all by some, however clear it may be to others, as the rightful exercise of an undoubted power f True, it requires a greater number of votes to effect results, but if the facts show a ca e for avoiding the election on account of fraud and bribery, and with 

the complicity of the Senator on trial, there can be no moral difficulty 

in asserting our undoubted power of expulsion. 

I desire to be understood in the exercise of this power of expulsion. I would that it should never be resorted to but upon the sti·ictest principles, anrl never perverted to base uses. I would look with 

solicitude and with apprehension upon its exercise for acts committeu 

before the election of a Senator, and which the people and their representatives in the legislature might be supposed to know before the 

election. After the election they are concluded; .the Senator-elect bas 

passed beyond thei.r l•ower, and afterward oan only be amenable to 

this body for his conduct. Happily, in the case before us we are not 

pressed beyond the reasonable exercise of our powers; the acts were committed in and about the election, and consummated since; in fact 

all of them being of the 1'88 gestre, and becn.use of which the whole 

thing constitutes one act from its incipiency before the election, 

through the election, and up to the time when the money was paid and the oath of office taken. Therefore, in every aspect of the case, 

I prefer the exercise of the latter power, aud shall vote accordingly. 

It is said that unless we assert this power of setting aside an elec- tion, railroads and other powerful corporations and combinations may 

coiTupt with impunity members of legislatures, and secure the returu 

of Senators to this ci.Jamber entirely in their interest, an<l yet at the• 
1873. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. 127 

• 

same time the Senators themselves not be criminally cognizant of 

the corrupt means used to send them here; and thus, so far as their own personal conduct is concerned, not be subject to our censure, and 

perhaps ought not to be amenable to our power. 

This is an apprehended evil-indeed, I may admit that it is an impending evil; but still; prudence would suggest that we do not rush 

upon the exercise of doubtful powers, much less of those no~ granted, 

in order to prepare for the redress of evils not yet upon us; and especially when we have, aa in this case, the admitted power to redress 

the wrong alike committed upon the people and upon this body. I 

sensitively shrink from the exercise of a power that places the solemn a~tion of a State legislature, and which it is admitted is the absolute_ right of the legislature under the Constitution, and required by it to 

be done, in the grasp of a mere majority of this body. I appreciate 

the power, and fear aa much as any one the influences of railroads 

and other corporations, of capital and combinations of wealth, in 

sending Senators into this chamber; but may not, upon the other 

band, this mere majorit;y be approached by these powerful influences 

and combinations to unseat a member who might be obnoxious on account of his purit.y, honesty, and independence, as well as to seat ono iu their interests¥ 

Examples are not wanting, even in our own brief history, to show 

that majorities are to be no more trusted here than elsewhere. 

I can well conceive, from my historical and personal know ledge and 

experience, that there are times and occa.sions when I woulu sooner trust majmities upon the ontsiue of this chamber than a majority in it. 

A mere majority to do these things, either to set aside an election or expel a member, may have the strongest moti>es to uo either, while 

generally thero must be a total absence of any motive, except that of 

strict right, with the two-thirds. For two-thirds .could not well be 

ca.lled upon to expel a member in order to accomplish any legislative 

object, when a majority could do it as well. 

Mr. President, it was not my purpose to say much upon the legal or constitutional aspect of this case; it was only to express to this 

chamber the views that shall regulate my conduct in giving my vote on this question; but I cannot avoid here for one moment noticin_g an argumeut or two submitted by the honorable Senators from Ohio 

[Mr. THum.UN] and Geor~ia, [Mr. NORWOOD,] and, if I mistake not, 

if I understood him, 1ho Senator from Missouri, [Mr. ScHURZ.] It 

struck me that the whole tendency of their respective arguments was this, that there should be some body somewhere with power to act as the censor of the members of the legislatures of the States. It struck me that this certainly was tho tendency of the argument of my honor·able friend from Ohio. It was the sum and substance of tho argument of my honorable friend from Georgia that there should be some power residing somewhere to judge, determine, and correct the misconduct of members of the legislatures of the States in the election of 

Senators; and they unhesitatingly said that if there were no such power 

in express terms granted in the Constitution, it ought to be. But 

they asserted that that power was fully conferred upon this body 

under that provision which authorizes it to judge of tho elections of 

Senators by the legislatures. 

Now, Mr. Pre ident, have we come to this f Are tho States, are the 

merubers of the legislatures of the sovere-ign States of this Union, 

to pass under the censorship of this body Y True, they may be cor- rupt; true, they may act badly-the people everywhere may act 

badly-a whole nation may act badly-but how can that be helped, 

and where but in the people themselves does the remedy lief Are we to determine-are we seventy-four Senators, holding our offices for ·six years, responsible to nobody, not eithE"r responsible to our own St::~otes or to the people, for that period of time-to set ourselves up 

iu this chamber as censors on the conduct of members of the legislature Y Are we to go behind their act as a body, and inquire into the 

motives of members for doing it Y Are we to ask their rea-sons Y The 

Senator from Maine is to come into my State, and inquire into the 

motives of representatives of the people there, supposed to be good 

men, and, if not, that is our misfortune. It is our misfortune if they are not good and pure men, anu the people there ought to apply the 

remedy, as they have the power and we have not the power to do it. 

If they send ~'llpnre men here, it is both a shame and a wrong, but 

the rest of tho country must bear with it 1m til rectified by the people or by ourselves when wo can properly and legally do it. Let the 

remaining Senators hold us Mcountable for our legislation and personal conduct. If we are corrupt here, turn us out; hold us amenable 

for our conduct a.s Senators. But let not this body, let not Senators on tside of my State, the Senator, for example, from California, sitting 

by me, como into my St::\.te, and undertake to put the members of my 

legislature on tria-l, and inquire of them, "How did you come to cast 

yom· vote for Mr. HAl\ID,TON, or Mr. DE..-....TNIS 'Ve want to know your rea.sons. Was money given to you; was office held out to you; was a pistol drawn upon you ; were you threatened; were you intimidated, so that under fear you cast your vote f" 

And here I will ob orvo, speaking about fear and duress, and 

about which so much has been said, that it must be that when it 

goes to tho impressment of a legislature as a body and affects it as a body. I spoke about a pistol being drawn upon a member; 

it was upon the occasion of a senatorial election, and an illustration here. If I mistake not, that occurred in the State of Pennsyl- vania, that is, if my information ilil true, and I have no reason to 

question it, for it is very bard to beat the honorable Senator from 

Pennsylvania [.Mr. CAMERO~] when either democrats or republicans are in power in that State, especially when the legislature is clost\ly 

divided in its politics. We know that from experience. We· know, or at all events are advised, that when Mr. Buckalew, lately a Senator 

here, was elected by one or two votes-there being a democratic ma- jority in the legislature-that a member voted with a pistol by his 

side. Now, in illustration, say upon that occasion there were fifty on one side and fifty on the other, and this one vote determined the 

election. W oulcl you call that duress-and more particularly a duress 

of the body of the legislature Y One man there, for the sake of the 

argument, was under duress out of the hundred, and would this give 

you the power to inquire into and set aside the act of that legislature in the election of a Senator Y And for what, if soY Because one man wa-s frightened out of one hundred; he, being a democrat, 

frightened to do what he ought to have done without any inducement or threat, while all around him were cool and calm, and never dreamed of hurting or of being hurt. Would you undertake to a - sume jurisdiction, inquire into, and set that election aaide 7 Would 

you undertake to inquire and to determine whether that member 

voted in fear, or because he was a democrat, and therefore, in allegiance to his party, voted for the democratic candidate Y It would 

be both a troublesome and a delicate inquiry, and would lead to all 

kinds of assumptions of power. 

I, for one, do protest against this body coming into my SLate and 

trying the members of the legislature as to their reasons or motives for 

performing a legislative function, whether from fear or from favor, for 

office or for money; whether from State considerations or from personal feelings; w nether to seek vengeance or secure favor; for if your 

power to inquire for one thing is admitted, you at once make it limitless. You may put the action of the legislature upon trial; you may 

ascertain whether it was a legislat.ive-body, and whether its action was in conformity to law. You may possibly inquire whether one hundred members voted or whether one hundred muskets voted in 

their stead; and this would refer to the question of duress, if such a term can be applied to a functionalle{J'islative body. 

The honorable Senator from Missouri, [ur. SCHURZ,] for the purpose 

of establishing a distinction or principle that I cannot precisely un- derstand, asked a question of the honorable Senator from Delaware, 

[Mr. BAYARD,] whether the Senate was not the creation of the Constitution. Of course it is the creation of the Constitution! Therefore, 

is it not an independent body, and has it not a right to judge of such 

things, so entirely connected with itself as the election of its own members f I give the substance as near as I can, not his words. True; 

but it can only judge under the powers conferred by the Constitution. 

Admit that Senators are not here in an embassadorial capacity, we are still here under the limitations of the Constitution, and can only 

exercise the powers therein granted; we can judge, or do any other 

thing, only so far as it is authorized by the Constitution. 

We are here to represent what Y T_o represent the States, their 

sovereignty, rights, and powers. The Constitution says that each 

State shall have two Senators, to do what, to determine what Y To 

do and perform all acts and things as prescribed and required to be 

done by the Constitution, and nothing besides. The States did not 

send us here, nor does the Constitution give U'l the power, to sit in 

jndO'ment and decide who composed the members of a legislature, and mu~h less their reasons for any act:oion, however absurd or wrong it 

may appear to be. 

If the Constitution fails because of the corruptions of the people, our form of government fails, and all is brought to a disastrous end. 

If we cannot get along under the Constitution without undertaking t.o uproot and upturn all our previous ideas connected with its limited 

powers, let us acknowledge the failure, and let us set to work to make a different and a better one if we can. If this power ought to exist 

to hold in check and correct the corruptions of the people or their 

representatives, let us make it; let us have it amended, and iet ns have it fixed that we are to sit here as censors upon the acts and con- duct of the members of our legislative bodies in the States. Then let us have full powers to judge and determine reasons, motives, conduct, 

everything. This being a body respcnsible to no one for six years' 

dnration,itmay be able, I have no doubt, in the opinion of omo, to give as fair an examination and as impartial a judgment as even Cato tho censor did. But so far as I am myselfconcerneu, I never would gi-vo 

to this body, or to any other, such a power over the members of tho 

legislatures of sovereign States. Such a power would be consolidation 

itself. 

I have thus briefly commented, and in a very imperfect manner, 

upon the legal part of the case. Now let me turn my attention to 

its moral condition and political relations. 

Mr. President, this is a most painful duty we are now obliged to 

discharge as Senators. I know the Senator upon trial. Om· rel:.ttions 

have been friendly and pleasant, and his deportment and conduct 

upon this floor have been unexceptionable. His great misfortune in 

his a-spirations for a seat in this chamber was that his plane of 

thought and feeling did not rise higher than tho atmosphere of Kan- sa.s. The testimony shows a horrible condition of things there both 

in a moral aud a political sense. The honorable Senator from illinois [Ur. LOGAN] has criticised, and 

I am not here to say that he bas unfairly criticised, the cha.racter and 

testimony and conduct of some of the prominent witnesses against 

Mr. CALDWELL, and has denounced thorn a.s ba.d, corrupt mon, <.Lnt1 

unworthy of belief. But bowevc1· ba.d and corrupt thcso mon may 
---

128 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. MARCH 20, 

bo, the trouble of the Senator on trial is that they were his associates 

and friends, or at least co-workers in this matter; and it is admitted 

by him that he paid $15,000 to one of them, Carney, and a written 

agreement to that effect was executed and delivered, under a contract 

tl.tat he, Carney, should not be a candidate for this seat. It is also 

proved, by a friend of Mr. CALDWELL, Mr. L. Smith, that an addition~! 

$1,000 went to Carney, in the shape of expenses, making 22,000 altogether, though Carney, while admitting the payment of the $7,000 by 

Mr. CALDWELL, denies that he got it. All this, in itself, is not only 

sufficiently culpable, but it tends to give tone to the other testimony, 

touching the purchase of members of the legislature themselves, how- ever unsatisfactory it might be, standing alone; for one cannot well 

resist the conclusion that a person who would buy off a candidate 

would not hesitate to buy up a voter. 

Mr. President, we have passed through a cold and a gloomy winter. 

We have passeu, too, through a cold and a gloomy session. The last 

session of Congress bas been without a parallel in our legislative history. Instead of inaugurating measures to relieve the country from a debauched and a debauching currency, to reduce expenditures, to 

revise the tariff and internal taxes and reduce them, to reduce the 

Army and Navy, to do something in order to relieve the shipping and 

agricultural interests from the oppressions which now bear so baru 

upon them; instead of directing our effort to the accomplishment of 

these great objects, -we have bad committees in both Houses composed 

of leadi.og members-gentlemen of eminent ability, and of the highest 

integrity of character- laboriously engaged during almost the whole 

session in the investigation of fraud, corruption, and of personal misconduct. From the frauds, corruptions, and usurpations in Louisiana, 

down through the intrigues, speculations, and corruptions of the Credit 

Mobilier to the bribery and corruptions in Kansas, we have had com- mittees c.ontinually examining, exposing, and reporting the whole ses- sion long; so that the very atmosphere we breathed in this and in the 

other House was tainted with the impurities thrown up by these investigations. As no respect was paid to persons, so no one involved 

in any degree in any of them escaped observation. It was well settled 

here that no one should be deprived of the right of investigation on account of race, color, or previous condition, whether of character or of position. Men of high degree and men of low degree; Christian 

statesmen and trading politicians; moralizers and revilers; financiers 

astute and speculators reckless; men impecunious and rich men; men of vaulting ambition, men of prying conceit, were altogether in the same caldron, bubbling and boiling the winter through. The three 

witches in Macbeth never sang around a caldron containing more ex- traordinary ingreilients. 

That session bas made for us and for our country a record of shame. The good that may come of it is that these exposures of error or of 

guilt, whatever it may be called, may impress all to do better in the 

future, even if no higher and nobler motives should prompt us. History is again repeating itself. Can it be that the corruptions of olcl 

Rome should be already upon.our young and vigorous state? Have we reached the matured age of a nation before we are fairly out of 

the swaddling-clothes of infancy f 

Rome, true, bad no gigantic railroad corporations who, with their 

wealth and capital, could tamper with the public virtue, and with their 

power influence the public sentiment; nor had she the great kindred 

corporations everywhere existing in this country and wielding such a prodigious power. But she had her Appian and other great highways, over which her legions marched to conquest and returned ,in 

triumph laden with the spoils of conquered nations. While . she 

bad no Credit Mobilier, she had lands to distribute and largesses of 

money to bestow upon her corrupted citizens. She had men of un- told wealth, both citizens and senators. Hardly anywhere in the 

world since has there been more aggregated wealth; and nowhere, 

before or since, did capital ever exert more power than it did at 

Rome in the days of Sylla, Pompey, and Crassus. 

Senators will pardon me for recurring for one moment to the con- dition of her senate at this period, and to the character of one of her 

leading men. It may aid us in criticising our own conduct and con- dition, and avoiding, if not too far gone, the evils it exposes. 

You all know who Marcus Crass us was. I desire to read a II.lasterly 

cast of character drawn by a distinguished historian of that celebrated man and senator : 

Far inferior to many of his peers in mental gifts, literary culture, and mili- tary talent, be outstripped them by his boundless activity, and by the persever· anoo with which he strove to possess all thinJZS and to become all-important. 

Above all, he threw himself into speculation. Purchases of estates during the 

revolution formed the foundation of his wa,alth; bnt he disdained no branch of 

gain; he carried on the businees of build,ug in the Cllpital on an extensive 

scale and with prudence; he entered into partnership wi h his freedmen in the most varied undertakings; be acted as banker both in and out of Rome, in per. son or by his agents; be advanced money to his colleagues iu the senate, and 

undertook-as it might happen-to execute works or to bribe the tribunals ou !.heir account. He was far from nice in the matt{)r of making profit. On occa- sion of the Snllan proscriptions a forgery in the lists bad been proved against him, 

for which reason Snlla. made no more use of him thenceforward in affairs of sta.te; 

be did not refuse to accept an inheritance because the testamentary dooument 

which contained his name was notoriously forged; he made no objection, when 

his bailitfs by force or by fraud, dislodged the petty holders from lands which 

adjoined his own. He avoided open nollisious, however, with criminal justice, and 

lived himself like a genuine moneyed man in homely and simple style. In this 

fu~n~~~ub~ :~: ~~s~~~f~ ~lfuf ;bi~ha :o{rf~ga ~f:re \f~~:rfi', s!~t ~rj~ fraying enormons extraordinary eA.-peuses, still amounted to 170,000,000 sesterces, (£1,700,000.) He had become t he richest of Romans, and the reb_y, at the same time, a great political vower. If, according to his expre sion, no one might call 

• 

hims~lf rich who could not maintain an army from his revenues, one who could d~ thts wa-s h~dly any ~onger a mere citizen. In reality, the views of·crassus armed at a. btgher obJect than the possession of the fullest money-chest in Rome. He grudged no pains to extend his connections. He knew how to sal~t~ by J!ame every burge~ of the capital. He refused to no suppliant his 

assistance ill court. Nature, illdeed, had not done much for him as an orator· his spea_kin~ was ~. his deliyery monotonous, he had difficulty of hearing; but his 

pertinamty, which no weansomeness deterred and no enj6yment distracted, over- came such obstacles. He nev~r ap~eared unprepared, h~ ~ever extemporized, and so he became a yleader at all times ill request and at all tunes ready, to whom it wn:s no derogati'!n that a cause was rarely too bad for him, and that he knew how !.o mfiuence the JU_dges not merely by his oratory, but also by his connections, aull, 

if necessary, by his ~old. Half the senate was indebted to him · hill habit of advancing to." frien~s ' money without int!lrest, revocable at ple~sure, rendered a number of ~nfiuent1al men dependen.t.on him, and the more so that, like a genuine man of busmess, he made no distinution of parties, maintained connections on all 

han.ds, and r eadily lent to every one able t-o pay or otherwise useful. The most darmg party leaders, w bo made their atta~ks recklessly in all directions were care- ful not t~ quarrel with Crass us; he was compared to the bull of the be;d, whom it was adVIsable for none t-o provoke.-.Mommsen's History of Rome, vol. iv, pp. 24-26. 

:Mr. President, I thought that at the conclusion of such a session as the last it might be most.appropriate to the occasion, if not, indeed, 

most profitable to us all, that this portrait of a marked historical character should be brought to the attention of the Senate. I have no comments to make upon it. I could not, if I never so much desired 

give more point and direction to it than it does itself in the simpl~ reading of it; it speaks for itself. 

Sir, the President, in his late inaugural, has flown off into the 

realms of fancy; indeed, into the higher regions of prophecy-and 

predicted a kind of millennium, when every civilized people would 

be republican; when the world will become one nation, and shall 

speak one language, and have no more armies and navies. The en- thusia-sts of olt.l, in their exaltation of the great brotherhood of man, 

could do no more. 

Mr. President, I fear that our distinguished Chief Mao-istmte is ~ore hopeful than sagacious. His accuracy of reasonable deductwn I must doubt. llis is no Baconian philosophv. But that under 

the bright sunshine and crisp air of the 4th of Jtfarch, with all the pageantr~ and pomp and adulation o~ incoming or continuing power 

around h1m, be gave too loose a .rem. to exuberant feeling, rather 

than, U_POn such a great state occaswn, more carefully depending upon a coolJudgment. 

I must confess that, for myself, I am not so hopeful of such great 

results. Most certainly I do not see them in the future either in . Europe, Asia, or even in Africa, and much less in the islands of the sea. And then when we come to our own favored continent, and still 

further, when we come to our own favored country, what a gloom is 

already settling around it and upon it. Instead of being a guiding-star 

to others, as pr.edi_cted by the ~.resident, I rather fear that it may 

prove to be an tgnt8 jatuzut, leadmg other and too-credulous naliions 

into the very quagmires of trouble. I confess that I do not see any 

very great movement, either in Senegambia or Guinea, toward giving 

up their nationalities, their government and language, even under 

the substantial inducements of the fifteenth amendment, to become a part of us. [Laughter.] I doubt very much whether the Chine e even through the operations and the co-operative aid of the Pacifi~ Mail Steamship Company, will be willing, within the next decade, at 

any rate, to resolve themselves into republicans, abandon their language of characters1 and take up with our consonants, diphtbon~s, and 

vowels. I. doub.t w~ether the Ge.rmau nationality is beginmng to 

dream of d1ssolvmg Itself as a natwu, and consent to be absorbed in a world-nation, and to speak one language, even if it were to sacrifice 

the mutter-sprache. And as for ourselves, sir, I did not see a single ap- propriation made-and I think there is hardly an object anywhere on earth that did not have one in the appropriation bills of the last ses- sion- for the construction of any establishment for the purpose of 

bflating our spears into pruning-hooks and our swords into plowshares ; but, alas, on the contrary, great sums of money provided not 

only to prepare for war for all time to come in this world, but, if it 

could be, to carry it on in the world to come. [Laughter.l 

If unity is to compass all good, as our Cbi_ef Magistrate would indicate, then, in a restricted degree, how well it would apply to Kansas! 

In the testimony taken in the case before us, and in that taken in the case of the late Senat.or Pomeroy, it is shown that the people and 

legislators of that State speak but one language, have but one mind, 

and are actuated by one motive. There is a millennium in that State, 

not one, we must all admit, based upon any moral or religious sentiment, but nevertheless one resting upon uniformity-the uniformity 

of bribery, corruption, and villainy. '!'here is no example like it in 

any other State. In Louisiana, Florida, Alabama, Arkansas, South 

Carolina, only portions of their people have been instrumental in 

making them pandemoniums of fraut.l, corruption, usurpation, and 

violence; but in Kansa-s there does appear to be a unity of guilt not 

before paralleled, and, it is to be hoped, never again to be witnessed. Mr. President, what is to be done As Senators who feel that the 

dignity of this body must be shielded, the interest and honor of the 

country protected, and our own self-respect vindicated, we must lay our bands upon any sort of corruption wherever and whenever it appears, when we have the constitutional power to do so. We dare not 

compromise with it; we cannot, in safety to ourselves or with credit 

to free institutions. While I may sympathize with the person who is 

to be the subject of my judgment, I cannot escape the paramount 

duty of condemning the act in the most solemn form known to this or any other legislative body. 
1873. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. 129 

Mr. CONKLING. Mr. President,. the Senate yesterday, honoring me with attention, the more gratifying because! did not expect and could 

not deser:ve it, listened to a wearisome statement. I attempted to give some reasons questioning the ri~htful power of the Senate, of its own mere motion, to dissolv-e the choice of a Senator made by the legislature 

of a State. I will ·conclude this branch of the subject by alluding 

briefly to some of the results of adopting the resolution before us. Should it be adopted, it will staud adjudged and recorded, that no choice of a Senator having been made in Kansas in 1871, the SAat which was once h~ld by Mr. Ross has been vacant ever since Mr. Ross left it. 

The governor of Kansas cannot fill such a vacancy. The Senator from 

Pennsylvania [Mr. ScoTT] the other day assumed that he might ; 

but the Constitution shows us that no appointment can be made by 

the governor of Kansas to :fill the place, if it has not lleen filled by 

the election of Mr. CALDWELL. 

And if vacancies-

! read the words of the Constitutionhappen by resignation, or otherwise, during the reaess of the legislature of any State• 

the executive thereof may make temJ>orary appointments until the next meeting of the legisla.ture, which shall then :fin such vacancies. 

It is in the case, and only in the case, of a vacancy which "happens," 

(and in pa-ssing I remind Senators that the word "happen" has come to lle a term of art, from repeated judicial and parliamentary construction;) it is only in the case of a vacancy which " happens" during 

the recess of a legislature, that a temporary appointment may be made 

by the governor. I turn to the act of Congress to learn who may fill 

the seat which, if this resolution be true, ALEXANDER CALDWELL 

does not, lly law, hold. I read from the act of 1866: 

That the legislature of each State which shall be chosen next preceding the expi· ration of the time for which any Senator was elected to represent said Stat-e in Congress shall, on tbe second Tuesday after the meeting and orgam~ation thereof, proceed to elect a Senator in Congress, in the place of such Senator so going out of ojftce, 

in the following manner. 

The legislature " chosen next preceding the expiration of the time 

for which any Senator was elected." If this resolution lle true: .ALEx- ANDER CALDWELL wa-s not elected ; no Senator has been chosen to the 

seat since Mr. Ross was chosen; and the only legislature which 

under this provision of the statute could :fill it, has completed its 

term and is dissolved forever. 

I follow this statute to find the section which provides for filling 

this seat after the resolution on the table shall ostalllish that it has 

not been :filled. 

Another section declaresThat whene>er, on the meeting of the le~slature of any State, a >acancy shall 

exist in the representation of such State in tne Senate of the United StatesThat is the case here, if the resolution be truesaid legislature shall proceed, on the second Tuesday after the commencement and organization of its session, to elect a person to fill such vacancy in the manner hereinbefore provided for the election of a Senator for a full term. 

That cannot be done now, because the day has passed. The legislature of Kansas, oblivious to the fact that it had a vacant Senatorship to fill, has lost the opportunity, from lapse of time; and i~ ses- sion, now expiring, will cease before tidings of our action will reach it. 

The concluding words of this section are : 

And if a vacancy shaJl happen during the session of the legislature, then on the 

second Tuesday after the legi!!lature sbiill have been organized, and !!hall have no· tice of such vacancy, it shall proceed, &c. 

That is not this case. That is the ca-se as it would be should Mr. 

CALDWELL be expelled, because a resolution of expulsion would affirm 

that, having been elected to his seat, he held it until the resolution 

operated upon him, and then a vacancy happened; and the happening 

being during the session of the present legislature, the legislature 

could proceed, on the second Tuesday after notice of such vacancy, to 

fill it by an election. If the resolution of expulsion found the legislature not in ses ion, the governor could appoint under the Constitution. 

This statute was devised cautiously by the Judiciary Committee of 

the Senate, when the Judiciary Committee was the Committee on Privileges and Elections, and when its memllers had become some- what versed in the law applicable to contested elections and to the 

tenure of seats in the Senate. The statute was intended, along with 

the Constitution, to cover every conceivable case of vacancy. It was intended to provide for every contingency which judicial or parliamentary foresight could suggest. But the resolution before us presents a case never dreamed of by the men who draughted, amended, 

and enacted any statute to be found in the records of Congress. 

To enable any power to fill this seat, what mq.st we hold next after 

the adoption of the resolution Y One of two things: either that the 

statute is merely directory, only a. puff of air, to be observed lly legislatures when they choose to observe it, or not to be observed at all; or that we have found a casus omissus in the statute. Is there any 

other alternative 7 I invite Senators to suggest it. Can we get over or around this statute, except by holding either that it is not man- datory and may be disregarded, or else that the statute is silent 

because it bas been left for Mr. CALDWELL to illustrate a contingency 

never conceived of by any of the statesmen or lawyers who have left 

their foot-prints on the sands ¥ 

The resolution abounds in odd consequences. Several statutes provide that every Senator shall be paid '' from the time that the com- pensation of his predecessor ceased." Who, if ALEXANDER CALDWELL 

was not elected, will be the predecessor of him who comes next t 

Should Mr. CALDWELL be expelled, he would be the predecessor of the 

9 

man who succeeds him; but when we have decided that Mr. C.ALD· 

WELL was never elected, never a member, who, I repeat, is to be the 

predecessor of him who comes next in order! Manifestly Mr. Ross 

will be his predecessor; and by act of Congress the new-comer will 

receive pay for all the time since the term of Mr. Ross ended. Mr. 

CALDWELL has already received the pay, and no one will argue that 

it can be recovered back from him. 

If we can avoid the election after Mr. CALDWELL has been here 

two years, we may do it in his ease or another's at• the end of :five 

years; and by the law of the land, should five years elapse before the 

Senate discovers that, owing to the motives of the members of the 

legislature, an election was null, "back pay" would cut no mean figure in the affair. The compensation of a Senator for six years is now $45,000, and a man elected to a vacancy :five years old would re- ceive $45,000 for one year's service in the Senate, aud at the same time the man adjudged never to have been elected at all would have 

received $39,000 . .A.nd yet, Mr. President, wemustnotfiinch, because 

this is a question of "courage!" The Senator from Vermont [Mr. 

MORRILL]. tells us if we do not fight it out on this line, it will look as if we approved of bribery. The Senator from Vermont underrates, 

I think, the intelli~ence of the American people if be supposes that 

they can be hoaxea so easily. 

Mr. SCOTT. If he should be re-elected, would he not receive pay over again¥ 

Mr. CONKLING. My friend anticipates me. I have a yet stronger case to put. .A. newspaper has been laid on my desk in which it is 

stated that the friends of the late Senator from Kansas (Mr. Pomeroy) are moving, and that in the event of Mr. CALDWELL vacating 

his seat, they hope to return Mr. Pomeroy to it. Is Mr. Pomeroy not 

eligible f Suppose he should be elected; look at the grotesque plight 

of the matter of salary and memberehip, then! Mr. Pomeroy served 

in this body durin$ the whole of these same two years, receiving pay 

for all the time. 1f he were elected to the seat now occupied by Mr. 

CAI.DWELL after this resolution is adopted, he would come adjudged to 

take the seat as of the term beginning March 4, 1871. .A.nd thus one man would be adjudged by the Senate to occupy both seats from tho 

State of Kansas, to be both Senators from that State, and to receive 

both salaries at and for the same time! I confess my "courage" is a little daunted by such a proposition. 

Mr. FERRY, of Connecticut. Will tbe Senator allow me to ask a. question f 

Mr. CONKLING. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FERRY, of Connecticut. I understood the Senator yesterday 

to agree that the Senate might declare a seat vacant where the elec· 

tion had been controlled uy duress. Would not the same train of 

consequences which the Senator has supposed to follow in the ca-se of 

the passa~e of this resolution follow in the case of the vacating of a seat whicn had been filled hy duress! 

Mr. CONKLING. As a case possible in supposition, there may be 

force in the Senator's question. As a case applicable to the real 

transactions of 1ife, it fails from impossibility. It could not occur his· 

torically or legally, if military force captured a legislature and coerced an election, that it would be years before a. discovery or suspicion of 

the fact. If a. military revolution should swallow a legislature, the 

Committee on Privileges and Elections being charged OH the 11th of 

May, 1872, to inquire, would be able to report before the 17th of February, 1873. I am answering my friend upon the fact, and the practical sense of the thing. .AI3 matter of speculation, if a Senator should 

be chosen by a regiment of infantry marching upon a. legislature, and 

casting a ballot of bayonets in a joint convention of bayonets, and 

nobody should know it, or it should not {?et out for years, I am not 

prepared to say that some of the difficulties I have suggested might 

not exist. It has often been said that hard cases make shipwreck of 

principles; and that extreme cases, obscure rather than aid the mind. 

The sucrgestion of my friend seems so far from the line of human 

prollabil.ities, that it is difficult to utilize it in this discussion. If we can dispose of the ca-se before us aright, we may hope to be equal to 

other cases when they arise. 

Mr. President, I leave this branch of the subject, having detained 

the Senate already too long, and I proceed to consider the question as it would stand, admitting the fallacy of the positions I have endeavored to maintain. 

I take up the ca-se now as it must be tried, if the Senate shall hold 

that, unaided by a statute, it has power of its own mere motion to 

vacate au election made by a State. I ask, :first, if impure motive in 

those who voted be the matter we must judge, how must it be proved, 

and of how many members must it be found f 

Bribery is a crime ; all fraud is a crime ; and, like every other crime, 

it must be proved. So say the books. It cannot be presumed. Conjecture will not do; hearsay will not do; it must be established lly 

legal evidence. To convict a man of a murder not fully proved, is to 

do judicial murder. Discarding from this volume of questions and answers so much as confessedly would be received in no court of justice, we must extract the facts proved by the remainder. This is no easy 

task, and thosewhohaveundertakenitareopposed in their conclusions. 

The Senator from Wisconsin, [Mr. CARPENTER,] who has spent more than twent-y years in studying the art of weighing evidence, who has 

distinguished himself in practicing the profession whose chief faculty 

it is to ascertain truth, and who sat from beginning to end as a mem1 

ber of the committee and listened to the witnesses, tells us that U"pon 

all the evidence no upright and intelligent jury could :find a single 
130 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. MARCH 20, 

instance of bribery of a member of the legislature. The Senator from 

Illinois, [l\lr. LOGAN,] another member of the committee, gives us the same assurance. The Senator from Rhode Islllnd [Mr. ANTHONY] also 

dissented from the report, although be bas expressed no opinion in the case. Three members of the committe-e dissent. Th('l report comes to us from but four members; and with those who saw and beard the wit- nesses almost equally divided, we, who did not see or hear a single 

witness, must glean as we may from the bare record. 

Before coming to the question whether bribery is proved, and bow 

much bribery is proved, it will be convenient to determine whether our judgment depends upon the number of members bribed. If one bribe be fatal, we may be relieved from pursuing the detaila of 

the testimony. Let us consider, then, how many voters must have 

been bribed to destroy the election. Expulsion, may be for one bribe as well as for one thousand. The turpitude of the a.ct, not its effect or repetition, is the test in cases of expulsion. An offer to bribe, 

may be enough for expulsion, if a bribe accepted, would be. So a statute punishing bribery, is satisfied by one bribe, as much a~ & 

statute punishing perjury, is satisfied by one perjury. The English 

statute which disables a briber from holding the office, and forfeits 

the seat, makes one bribe constitute the crime. Why not f The 

Dritish statutes, remember, recognize and assume the election, because 

they forfeit it. I call attention to the fact that, running through the 

English statutes, descending from one to another, is a :fixed and 

identical phraseology, treating the election as a fact, and then working, as penalty and forfeiture in the briber, disability to hold the 

office. 

Observe the language employed by Parliament, and adhered to 

again and again in succeeding enactments : 

That every person and persons so giving, presentin.,., or allowing, making, prom- ising, or enuauing, doing, a.cting, or proceeding, shallbe, and are hereby declared 

and enacted tO be, disabled and incapacitated upon such election to serve in Parliament for such county, city, town, borough, port, or place; and that such person or persons shall be deemed and taken, and are hereby declared and enacted to be 

deemed and taken, no members in Parliament, and shall not act, sit, or have any vote or flace in Parliament, but shall be, and are hereby declared and enacted to be, to al intents, constructions, and purposes as if they bad never been returned or elected members for the Parliament. 

Here is a manifest implication that an election is not void on general 

principles because a bribe entered into it. The very basis of the statute is that at common law, such an election is valid; and that to get 

rid of its results, a statute is needed. Recognizing the election, the 

statute proceeds to deprive the guilty man of its fruits. If no effectual 

election had occurred, if an act of bribery bad made it null and void, 

it would be absurd to declare that the briber should "be disabled 

and incapacitated upon such election to serve in Parliament," and 

that he should be deemed and taken no member," and shall not act or sit," and shall be, "to all intents, constructions, and purposes as if 

be had never been returned or elected." Such language could never creep into a series of statutes, if, without any statute at all, the election itsslf were void, and the man voted for had no footing whatever 

by reason of it. For the purpose of such disabling statutes, one instance of bribery is all-sufficient; and so it will be for the statute, 

which I predict will soon find a place among the acts of Congress. 

But in the absence of a statute, bribery, to undo an election ab initio, 

must, I think, be bribery which controlled it. Superfluous votes 

tainted, will not turn all honest votes to ashes. If, after casting out 

every corrupt vote, a majority of unbribed votes remains, the majority 

will stand, and stand on the law of majorities. Any other rule would 

work monstrous evil and injustice. 

Assume that one bribe given to a member of the legislature, vitiates the election of a Senator, and see to what such a doctrine might 

lead. Let me put a case. The two houses first vote separately; each 

house chooses the same person; in one bouse he receives forty ma- jority; there is no pretense of any bribe there; in the other bouse he 

receives five majority, and there is an allegation of one bribe in that 

house. The two houses having agreed, no vote in joint convention 

occurs, and upon the rule that a single venal vote "poisons the 

whole election," two things follow: first, one bribe in one house 

not only vitiates the election in that house, but vitiates the election in the other bouse also where there was no bribe at all; and 

secondly, although there was a maJority of forty-four unbonght votes 

in the two houses for the same person, the election would fall when- ever the one bribe in one house came to light. The law has no anaiogy for such a dogma. 

"False pretenses" is an offense by statute, "cheats" an offense at common law; but every lawyer knows that the false pretense must 

accomplish the purpose ; it must be the means by which the signature, 

the money, or the goods were obtained. It must, in short, be the 

turning-point. The prosecutor must prove that, but for the particular representation alleged to be false, he would not have parted 

with the money or the property. The relation of cause and effect, is 

part of the philosophy of the law. Must not bribery, to be ground for 

destroying an effect, be the cause of the effect T Must it not have 

influenced the result T Must it not be something more than a mere concomitant fact T New Jersey and New Hampshire formerly elected 

members of the Honse of Representatives by general ticket; au act 

of Congress has directed otherwise since. Each voter, in voting for one Representative, voted for all the Representatives of the State. If 

the doctrine now urged upon us, that one bribe will vitiate an election, not disable the briber, or subject him to expulsion, but altogether 

undo the election itself, be the law, one bribe accepted by any voter 

in the State of New Jersey, would have prostrated the election, not 

only as to the man by whom or for whom the bribe was paid, but as to all others for whom the bribed vote was cast. Would it not T 

Suppose two Senators are to be elected in a legislature together, at 

the same time, as ha~ often occurred; they are voted for on the same ballot, and one of them has bribed a member of the opposite party; 

shall it be held that the ballot the bribed member votes, is void p1·o 

tanto, that is, one-half bad and one-half good; that it takes effect as to the name upon it which be was not specifically bribed to vote for, 

and takes no effect as to the other; or that it is wholly void, and, being 

void, makes void every other vote cast for both of the two persons 

who receive the majority T 

So in the case of State officers: a governor and eight other nominees run upon the same ticket; one candidate, or his friend, pays money 

to a lonnger about the polls to vote, and he votes the whole ticket; a majority of one hundred thousand may pronounce for that ticket, 

but the election is void, we are told, because one man was bribed. At 

the last election, the State of New York elected one member of the 

House of Representatives at large. He received about sixty thousand 

majority, and now we are asked to hold that, if it could be found that one man was bribed to vote for him, his election would be void. :Mr. 

President, does not such a proposition shock the common sense of 

every man T Does it not shock every mind able to put two and two 

together f When you deal with a statute like the English statute, 

which denounces the man who offered the bribe and punishes him, 

it is all plain sailing; but the idea that the expressed and recorded 

will of nine hundred thousand electors inN ew York, can be stifled and 

wiped out because one loafer got a glass of grog or a ham for his vote, 

is enough to excite a smile upon the frescoed faces of the fathers of 

the Republic. 

Indiana last year elected two members of Congress upon a ticket 

at large. The struggle wa~ bot and the vote was close. A few votes 

changed, would change the result, and this was known beforehand. It 

is not to be presumed that lax morals prevail in Indiana, or that an instance could be found in which a political mendicant managed to 

get _money from a committee or a poll-driver. But proclaim the 

doctrine that meat, drink, or money given to one man to influence 

his vote, upsets the whole election, and slippery may be the footing 

of the Representatives elected by only a hundred majority, in a can- vass in which both sides strained every ner:ve, and in which all the 

people of a great State were enlisted! 

The State of Pennsylvania elected at large three Representatives, 

and by a majority of about forty thousand. 

Mr. SCOTT- Forty-seven thousand. 

Mr. CONKLING. l!.,orty-seven thousand. There was loud talk about 

free doings in the City of Brotherly Love, and I admonish the Senators from that State to bethink themselves what may betide Pennsylvania and her interests, if forty-seven thousand majority may melt 

away in the breath of a witness who will swear to a single instance in 

which inducement was given for a vote. 

Again, if we adopt the rule that one bribe, instead of disabling the 

briber, as by statute it could be made to do, and instead of being 

ground of expelling the briber, altogether does away with the election, 

what difference does-it make who gives the bribe! I beg the attention 

of Senators to this point. If an election falls because of one bribe, 

manifestly it must be because the bribe operates upon the election; it 

operates upon the proceeding itself. You overrule the election; you 

vitiate that. Does it matter, then, who pays the bribe f Need the 

particular person voted for, be particeps criminis 1 Not at all, as regards 

the election. His criminality, is important only when yon come to 

expel him or to punish him. 

If one bribe will destroy .an election, the public is at the mercy of 

every gamester; every election is at the pleasure of one corruptionist, and by his permission. An opposing candidate, or any one of his 

parMsans, may defeat the popular will. Whenever two candidates 

contest a congressional district, each may say, "I will plant a seed 

which will destroy the result, if my competitor succeeds. I will cause a bribe to be paid, or I will be able to make proof that a bribe was paid; and this will overthrow the whole proceeding." Is such a weapon to be put into the hands of lobbyists and strikers f Shall such .an ingredient be introduced into the alchemy of politics, when the 

seething caldron already bubbles with gendering evils, and shall it 

be done in the name of public virtue f 

Bribed votes in ~ legislature, are valid or they are void; they 

count, or they are blanks. The Supreme Court says they count. Both 

the reports in the case of Potter and Robbins say they count. The 

English rule holds that bribed votes do not count in a popular election. I read from Male on Elections, page 347: 

Besides the statutory provisions againAt this offense, every vote purchased by 

bribery is void by the common law of Parliament, the person who gave his vote under such influence being considered as though he bad not voted at all. 

Admit that the vote is void, a~ the most rigorous rule affirms, and 

then bribed votes being like votes cast bla.nk, or not cast at all, must 

they not influence the result when deducted in order to undo it 'l 

Suppose ten stragglers wander into a legislature engaged in electing a Senator, and drop each a ballot in the box, and when discovered it 

turns out that all the members of the legislature voted, their votes 

elected, and the proceeding is complete, could it be held that the 

casting of the ten votes by the stragglers vitiated the election f But, on the other hand, if it were necessary to count the votes of the ten 

stragglers in order to make up a majority, and deducting them. no 
1873. 

election would remain, we see how law and reason might vacate such a proceeding. 

Cases of contested elections stud the annals of Congress from the 

be!rinning, and yet no hint has been given till now that one vote, not ne~essary in the count, can destroy an election. Such an idea seems never to have received the sanction of any mind in either House. A 

committee of the Senate bas recently repudiated it. I read from a report in the case of Mr. CLAYTON, submitted by the Senator from 

1\faine [Mr. MoRRILL] and the Senator from Iowa, [Mr. WRIGHT.] 

The views of the minority, submitted by the Senator from Georgia, 

[Mr. NoRWOOD] agree with the report on the point I am now considering. I fea.r these "views of the minority" have worked some miscLiefin this discussion upon another point, however. We read of a doctor who, being told thathe was killing the patient and must change 

the practice, said," I cannot; I have written a book in favor of this 

practice." [Laughter.] I surmise that some preconceptions con- nected with these minority views, from which it is not pleasant to 

retreat, have exerted an influence here, and not upon the Senator from 

Georgia alone. 

The report of the committee made by the Senator from Maine 

contains these words: 

It seems to us that upon principle we cannot enter upon the numberless in· 

quiries which would always be suggested in cases of this character preceding the 

election of the members whose duty it is to elect a Senator, unleBS such conduct 

and transactions clearly relate to and bear imm&diately upon the alleged frauds 

connected with such Senator's election. Not only so, but it would seem that they must so color the transaction of the final election of the Senator as to lead to the 

conclusion that bnt for them the result would have been different. Thns, suppose 

Senator CLAYTON used reprehensible means with the hope of securing the election 

of some member or members in one or more districts, and such persons were either not elected or failed to vote for him, or, if voting for him, he had a clear m ajority outside of those improperly elected, would any one say or claim that his seat could. be 

declared vacant 1 

Again says the committee : 

Sixth. He did not receive any votes under any snch agreement, and, least of all, 

any number itujficient to influence the result. And hence we conclude that nothing can be plainer or more manifest than that this charge is totally and entirely un- gostained. · 

Here is a plain affirmation, that purchased votes, to undo an election, mu t, at all events, be so numerous that without them the election 

would not have occurred. 

I turn now to the views of the minority, submitted by the Senator 

from Georgia, and read : 

And. when a candidate bribes a sufficient number of the electors to secure his election, 

he and they knowingly commit a fraud on the people, and by every rule of law any act don e through combination of an agent with a third party to defraud the prin- cipal is void. 

Again: · 

And, thiru, that h e obta ined five other votes, whi ch made his majority, and were necessary to his election, by giving to those electors as a consideration for their votes lucrative offices; and that this was aa corrupt as if, for the same purpose, he 

had paid them money in kind. 

Such was the law, as understood by majority and minority, when 

this report was submitted, first on the lOth of June, 1872, and again on the 26th of February, 1873. 

What stress of occasion has led to the sudden discovery that a rule 

of law which only a month ago a committee pronounced too plain to 

be disputed, really bas no existence at all, and that the true rule is 

exactly opposite t The discovery is so sudden, and so at war with 

reason, as it seems to me, that I must cling to the belief that bribery, 

to vitiate au election, must control it. Believing this to be the rule, I 

proceed to inquire whether, in the present case, votes were corruptly 

influenced which, when thrown out, would not leave legal and honest votes enough to uphold the election. 

I regret that the honorable Senator from Ohio [1\Ir. THURMAN] is 

not present. After careful examination, as he said, to find how many 

votes were bribed, and how many vot es changed would have defeated 

1\Ir. CALDWELL, he gave us his calculation. The figures given will, I 

fear, prove less reliable than from their forcible statement we had a right to expect. The Senator told us, with circumstance, and not 

without solemnity, that in his library he had read every word of 

the testimony, with his pencil in his hand. It has been said that one star differeth from another star in glory. So one Senator with a pencil in his hand, differs from other Senators in arithmetic. 

[Laughter.] The honorable Senator told us that 13 votes changed, 

would have defeated the election of Mr. CALDWELL. To show the 

importance of understanding the testimony, and the danger of putting trust in sharpened pencils, I ask Senators to open the volume 

before them, at page 362, and say by what feat of mathematics 13 

votes c.leducted as corrupted votes, would reverse or defeat this election. Mr. CALDWELL received 87 votes; all others received 36 votes. 

Mr. CALDWELL's majority over all was 51. Twenty-six votes must 

have been changed to leave him without a majority. Twenty-six: 

votes must have been taken from him, and given to his competitors, 

to leave him without a majority. The whole number of votes in the 

joint convention was 123; necessary to a choice, 62. Mr. CALDWELL's 

vote being 87, deducting 62, he had a majority of 25 more than were necessary. Would changing 13 of these votes change the result! No 

calculation, except of an eclipse, could so becloud the fact. He had 25 

votes more than were necessary to a choice; deduct 13, and 12 votes re- main-12 more than were necessary. Put the 13 on the other side, and 

12 votes still remain above the needed number. Twenty-six: must be 

found to have been bribed in order to leave no legal and honest majority. 

131 

·There can be no escape from this if Daboll and the milltiplication 

table are to be believed ; and I bring it to attention, partly to show how 

carefully and how prayerfully the honorable Senator from Ohio pored over this testimony, and also to show incidentally what a poor judge 

of figures Daboll was. [Laughter.] 

I call attention to another fact a.ppearing on this page. There was no secret ballot ; the vote was viva voce, every man rising in his place 

when his name was called and naming his candidate. Thus we know 

who voted for Mr. CALDWELL and who voted for others. Mr. Sidney 

Clarke, on his oath, denies that his name was withdrawn, or any votes 

transferred from him to 1\Ir. CALDWELL, upon any understanding or corrupt agreement; yet votes originally for Mr. Clarke are suspected 

to have been bought. But if we deduct every vote in both houses 

cast for 1\fr. CALDWELL which had at any time been cast for Mr. Clarke, even then Mr. CALDWELL has a majority. 

The Senator from Ohio, having fallen into the error of supposing 

that thirteen bribed votes would change the result, said he thought 

he could discover from the testimony that there was reason to believe 

that so many votes had been contaminated; but now, knowing that 

twenty-six: is the smallest number :which can affect the purpose, will 

it be contended that we can find on our oaths that so many members 

of the legislature of Kansas were bribeJ f Nothing approaching this 

has been intimated. The report negatives the idea. The report says 

that, taking all the evidence together, tllose who make the report 

believe that "some members of the legislature received money and 

others promises of money." The Senator from Indiana has put the 

case, because he was compelled by the facts to put it, upon the ground 

that a single instance of bribery is fatal. Surely he would not have 

assumed this extreme position, if the case had not required it. 

But, 1\fr. President, w~ are advised not to work out the question of 

brioery by cold figures or cold facts, not to be particular, but to go 

largely on the ground that 1\Ir. CALDWELL has no business here anyhow, whether he was elected honestly or not. Fault is found with 

the fact of his being selected at all, or being sent here, or ever thinking of coming here. His candidacy for the Senate is treated as an affront to the eternal fitness of things, and yet, at the same time, his 

whole conduct in the Senate ha-s been strongly bepraised. The com- plaint seems to be that he was too obscure to be Senator. One Senator says he had "no political' status;" another Senator says " he was unknown to political fame;" another says "he was only a business 

m-an." I will not conceal the surprise with which I listened to these 

comments. I supposed it was the boast of our system of government 

that every man, though he spring from the sod, has a right as much a-s any other man to surmount the last rung in the ladder of political 

distinction. I supposed American children were t:;tught to strive to 

raise themselves to the highest honors of the Republic. What is meant 

by this talk of its being presumptuous for a business man to aspire to 

the Senate f I do not understand it. There is no hereditary peenge 

here; no aristocracy through which men obtain seats in the Senate. 

What must a man have done before he can be pardoned for raising his 

eyes to the Senate, and allowing himself to be named for a seat in it f 

What must be his antecedents f 1\fust he have stood on the peril- ous edge of battle, and written his name in the purple testament of 

bleeding war f Must he have edited a newspaper, or t.wo or three 

newspapers f 1\fnst he have made speeches at the hustings f Must 

he be a writer of essays f Must he. have lectured in the lyceum f 

Must he belong to a learned profession f Must he be a phrase-monger f 

What is the standard of the honorable Senator from Ohio f Distinguished at the bar, that Senator rose to the bench, and having well worn the ermine, he went back to the bar, to reap golden harvests in 

the field below. But must all men wea.r such honors, before they can be considered as possible candidates for the Senate f Or, is it enough 

that a man among his neighbors and fellow-citizens stands well as a. brave and honest soldier in the battle of life f 

A Senator has just handed me papers, which, looked at on the 

instant, seem certificates of the past standing of Mr. CALDWELL. One 

bears date as far back a-s the Mexican war, and bears the signature of 

Franklin Pierce, who, by the by, was himself troubled with a plentiful lack of "political status." His mention for the Presidency, provoked one of the good sayings of that inimitable wit, Governor Corwin. The tidings being read in the hearing of a number of persons 

that Mr. Pierce was thought of for the nomination, Governor Corwin said solemnly, "Franklin Pierce proposed for the Presidency l 

Gentlemen, none of us are safe." [Laughter.] There being a firm 

of Pierce & Chapin, who made wagons in New England, when the 

papers reached that neighborhood announcing that Mr. Pierce had 

been nominated, a leading citizen said he was a democrat and waeJ 

satisfied with Pierce, but he should have liked it better if it had been 

Chapin. [Laughter.] 

Franklin Pierce and Winfield Scott, and others, seem to have signed 

these papers, and they certify the integrity, industry, and capacity 

of the man who undergoes a painful ordeal to-day. If these certifi.-' 

cates be true, and Mr. CALDWELL had been elected without disrep· 

utable means, he might, I think, be pardoned the presumption of 

appearing here. 

But, sir, Mr. CALDWELL is not indebted to himself, or to his merits, nor alone to his money, for being chosen Senator. It was not Mr. CALDWELL 

who was elected; as I read the evidence, it wa-s the city of Leavenworth. What politicians know as "the shrieks of locality" prevailed in the election so largely that I am moved to say, as I have sometimes' 

thought, that locality is perhaps the first element of American great · 
i32 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD~ MARCil 20, 

ness. When I remember all that fell to the lot of men because they 

lived south of Mason and Dixon's line, and all that befell men because 

they lived north of Mason and Dixon's line; when I remember the 

factitious importance given to the claims of ldtality, I repeat that in 

American politics, as a rule, locality is perhaps tho first element of 

political success. Here is the code of Maryland, [holding up a volume.] 

Look at the importance which Maryland attaches to locality, and the 

will with which she orders the residence of her Senators. Here is a statute, in violation to the Constitution of the United States, in which 

stand these words: · 

One of the Senators shall always be an inhabitant of the Eastern Shore, and the 

other of the Western Shore of Maryland. 

"My Maryland!" [Laughter.] 

Leavenworth wanted a Senator; and all the coh01·ts, all the dwell- ers in Mesopotamia, in the hill-country and in the valley, rallied un- der the banner of Leavenworth I Then it wa-s that Thomas Carney 

loomed into importance; he lived at Leavenworth. If two candidates were to be presented from Leavenworth, both would fail; division, would be destruction, and they would be buried in a common grave. Thus came the opportunity of Carney, the opportunity first 

to black-mail CALDWELL, and afterward to snap at him with less than 

the magnanimity of the reptile that rattles before it strikes. 

So it happened that this man, little known in politics, widely known 

in business, largely acquainted in the State, came to be brought out 

by a published paper numerously signed requesting him to be a can- didate. 

Mr. President, I refer to these facts not to argue or sugO'est an approval or extenuation of the means employed to bring abo~t the election. I bring them to the surface for the light they shed upon the 

wisdom and the safety of our undertaking to infer that bribes were given, because a business man from Leavenworth was elected, a man not conspicuous in the broad expanse of political notoriety. In this 

presence, or in any other, in this case or in any other, I would challenge as a heresy the notion that in this country any class or professian has monopoly or precedence in respect of places in the Senate or in the Honse, or in any political department. Intelligence and integrity are safe passports to responsible station, whet.her their possessor 

be lawyer, fal'mer, doctor, freighter, banker, tanner, rail-splitter, or boatman. 

In the great State which honors me with a seat upon this floor I 

know hundreds of men never heard of in politics, business men, the 

latchet of whose shoes many a noted politician is not worthy to un- loose-men who in either House of Congress would abundantly vindicate the wisdom of their choice. 

If the character of Mr. CALDWELL was bad before his choice to the 

Senate, which I am told has never been suggested, let those who proposed him be arraigned and condemned, not for selecting a tyro in the 

grune of politics, but for selecting a man, whether proficient or ignorant in politics, bad in character, and therefore unworthy and unfit. 

The propriety of Mr. C.A.LDWELL'sa-spirationsfor the Senate, in view of 

his mental or his moral endowments, is not a question for us ; he 

must answer to the Senate for crimes against it, if he has done them, 

though he had ever before worn "the white flower of a blameless 

life." 

I come now to an ugly feature of this case, which I must not over- look. .Mr. CALDWELL paid a rival money to retire. I will not descant 

upon it. I condemn it utterly. It was gross, pernicious, immoral. 

If it shall ever find a defender or apologist, it will find neither in me. When Mr. CALDWELL did this act, love of safety, and love of duty, seem to have deserted him at once. No voice warned himTo be thus is nothing, But to be safely thusTo undo the election, however, a-s declared by the resolution before 

us, this transaction must be bribery, and bribery of those who voted. 

So, too, had anybody else paid Carney, the effect would have been 

the same, precisely the same, as to the election, and the election is the 

only matter before us now. Had the Kansas Pacific Railroad or the 

Bank of England paid the money to Carney upon the same terms, the case would not be altered. 

?-'he question, then, at this poi!lt is, was the payment to Carney, 

bnbery of the members of the legislature f What was Carney bribed 

to do 7 Not to vote. He had no vote. He was, I believe, a defeated 

candidate for that very legislature. At all events, Carney was not a member of the legislature. He was not bribed to die, or to remove, or to become ineligible, but to forbear activity in his own behalf and ~o ~upport CA!-DWELL. Actiyity or importunity in one's own behalf, 

1s m derogat10!1 of the public weal; and to forbear such a<ltivity, to 

forbear to electiOneer, or b~g for votes in one's own behalf, is meritorious. Support of CALDWELL, was not illegal, unless by illegal means. 

llu~ it is said Carney was paid money to support CALDWELL. The wr~tten agre~ment does not show this, but I assume the fact to inqmre where 1t leads us. Suppose a candidate imports a noted temperance man to speak to temperance men, or a noted tariff man to 

speak to tariff men, or a man known to be influential with a certain 

class of electors to speak or to missionary among the brethren· suppose he pays him 200 a day to make speeches; what effect up~n an election .would s~c~ a transac1rion have T I would no more take pay 

for makmg a political speech, than I would take pay for attending 

a_ funeral, or. for signing a petition for a pardon, or a recommendatiOn for apporntment to office. But .it seems I am wrong about this, 

for the practic~ bas long prevai}.ed, and is only mildly reprehended; 

and yet there 1s a strong family resemblance between it and the 

Carner ~ir .. We have had morality distilled through an improved a~emb10 m this _debate. We have had laid down at length what is 

nght and what IB not, and we have heard no suggestion that there is imp_ropri~ty in O?e man'.s paying money to another to make speeches 

nrgmg his electwn, or m the other man's accepting money for going ab?nt disinterestedly to advise the people, "the dear people," 

for ~herr o>yn good, and tell them how they ought to vote, to consult 

their own mterests. Those whose sense is finer than mine, may un- derstand the ~erence between giving money to Carney to recom- mend and advise others to vote for a candidate, and giving money to 

Carney to utter himself as a public speaker to the same effect. It 

is my misfortune that I do not understand the whole ureadth of 

the distinction. The honorable Senator from Ohio, after telling us that CALDWELL bad no status, had rendered no service, and han no attainments justifying his aspirations for the Senate, affirmed that 

it was P!oper for M~. CALDWELL to pay $5,000 to a newspaper to advocate him. Examrne the morals here commended to us while in 

the act of condemning the payment to Carney I A man, said to be 

unfit to be Senator, but blessed with money, subsidizes and pays- a newspaper to puff and magnify and recommend him as fit to be 

Senator, and all this with a view to win support of those who do not 

know him; and the proceeding is proper l I protest against this doctrine, an·d denounce the proceeding as dishonest. The payment of 

money to Carney, was more gross, but was it bribery of the legislature more than if an office had been promised to Carney f Suppose 

Mr. CALDWELL had said, ":Mr. Carney, would you not rather have a foreign mission ; would yon not rather be governor of a Territory; 

W?uld you not rather be an Indian a.gent t"-whick, according to my 

friend from Nevada [.Mr. STEWART] is" the potentiality of amassing 

wealth beyond the dreams of avarice"-" if so, I will obtain yon one of these offices." Had that been the bargain, the public money would 

have paid Carney; CALDWELL has at least the redeeming fault of having paid his own money. Suppose .Mr. CALDWELL had said, '"Mr. Carney, my friends and myself will support you next year for governor 

of Kansas," and it had been so agreed, would that be bribery of tho 

legislature of Kansas f Ev.ery statute and every legal definition says 

that bribery is "the gift or promise, either of money, office, or any 

other lucrative consideration." 

But it is said that retiring Carney, influenced the legislature, be- cause it reduced the number of candidates. As Carney has been 

presented to us, if an injnry was inflicted upon Kansas by depriving 

her of a chance of sending Carney here, it was ron(J'h on Kansas. 

[Laughter.] '!'here are toward half a million people in Kansas, and 

I hardly think no eligible person could be found because Carney 

withdrew. His withdrawal did, however, reduce the number of can- didates. Casting lotiB, would do this also. Suppose Carney and CALDWELL had said," Let us cast lots to see which shall withdraw; if we are both candidates we shall destroy each other; Leavenworth will 

have no Senator;" and lots had been caat. They would have resulted 

in favor of the one or the other, and one would have retired. Would 

that have been bribery of the legislature of Kansas f Agaiu, suppose :Mr. CALDWELL ha-d said, "1\Ir. Carney, we cannot both be Sen a tor; we must refer this to mutual friends; will you leave to the 

committee to say which of us shall be presented f" and it had been so agreed; it wouldhavereduced thenumberofcandidates, butwonld 

it have been bribery of the legislature of Kansas f Suppose CALD- WELL had published libels on Carney and blackened him, suppose 

he ha-d procured libels to be sworn to, knowing they were false, and 

thus Carney bad been driven from the field, I ask, first, whether it 

would affect the validity of CALDWELL's election; and second1 would 

it be bribery of the legislature of Kansas f If CALDWELL baa blackened the character of Carney, it would be infamous, it would be 

ground on which we might expel him if brought within our jurisdiction, but it does not therefore affect his election. Suppose CALDWELL had killed Carney in a rencounter; suppose he bad challenged 

him to the field of honor, as it once was called, and slain him in a duel, to get rid of him a-s a rival; this would have diminished the 

number of candidates; it would have rendered it impossible to vot.e for Carney, which Carney's withdrawal did not do; it would have 

been infamous in CALDWELL, it might have enabled us to expel him; 

but could yon, Senators, with your oaths upon you, decide that no election took place in Kansas becnuse CALDWELL killed a rival before the 

day arrived f 

'Ve are not without authority upon the question whether paying 

money to Carney can be held bribery of members of the legislature. 

It seems not to have been the ancient or the modern law of Parliament 

that paying a bribe to one man was bribery of another. Buying off a rival candidate, was held not to be bribery in an election. Under the 

British statutes against bribery, it was not held that paying a bribe t.o one man t.o influence the vote of another was bribery of that other, or bribery in an election in which the man paid had no vote. I read, 

from :Male on Elections, a statute passed so recently as George III : By the 49 George III, c. 118, (commonly called Mr. Cnrweu's act,) for prevent- ing the obtaining of !!eats in Parliament by corrupt practices, after reciting that the 

promiRe of any gift, office, &c., to procure the return of any member to serve in Parliament, (if not given to the use of some person having a. right to act as returning-officer. or t{) vote at such election,) was not bribery within tbe mean- ing of 2 George II, c. 24, &c. 

The third persons there referred to, were not Carneys in a republican government, where no man dominates another. They were per-
1873. CONGRESSIONAL· RECORD. 133 

sons belonging to a proprietary class, able, for special reasons, to 

control the suffrages of their tenants and dependents. The influ- ence of money paid to one holding relations of control over a voter, 

is obviously greater than if they were equals; and yet, even in such 

a case, a recent and special statute was deemed necessary to attach a penalty to paying money to one not himself a voter. 

I here take leave of the Carney transaction, reprobating it as disreputable and wrong, but believing it inapplicable to the question 

of the validity of the election, as distinguished from the un worthi- ness of Mr. CALDWELL himself. 

I have done with this case. I leave it, believing that the discussion 

will do much to concentrate a burnin~focus of indignant public attention upon the groveling agencies whlCh profane elections. The dormant forces of the State and national governments will, I hope, be 

roused. States should pass laws to punish the briber and the bribed, 

and Congress also should act. It may be declared, as the British statutes declare, that the briber shall be disabled, and he may be punished like other malefactors. A statute may forfeit the office when 

obtained by bribery, even when the successful candidate is innocent, 

and others pay the bribes. It may impose an oath upon every man on the threshold of both Houses, purging him of bribery; and taking the 

oath falsely, will be perjury, and ground for expulsion too. Such provisions will be a sad inscription on the statute-book, but not so sad, as a record in the Senate that morality in America has ebbed so low that we are forced to act without law and against law in despair of other methods. Above statutes, however, is public opi¢on. When a wholesome 

and rugged sentiment is awakened in this regard, men will no longer 

in their own behalf scuffle for place in the purlieus of legislatures 

and of nominating conventions; they will keep aloof; it will be disgraceful and fatal to appear electioneering and manipulating for 

themselves. They will wait until the office and the people seek them. 

But meanwhile, and always, we must adhere to the law, whether it 

works hardship or immunity fu a particular case. 

Mr. President, I have been broughttotheseconclusious, well knowing how some of them may grate upon the sensibilities of those, who, 

shocked at tho drama of depravity enacted ir Kansas, have not 

stopped to consider the mode in which it may be legally chastised. I am not unmindful of the disfavor to be earnetl by seeming to stand 

between transgression and retribution. Neither am I ignorant of 

the applause to be won now in the rOle of avenger and austere re- former .. But we are only the sworn ministers of the law, and in our oaths is the alph.a and omega of our duty. When we hear that a local court or jury in a trivial case, swayed by manifestations out of 

doors, and canva.ssing the popularity of the verdict or judgment to be 

rendered, has swerved from the law or the evidence, we dubiously 

shake our beads, ·lament the weakness of judges, ancl wonder whether, 

after all, the time bas not come to abolish trial by jury. 

Senators, let us, the elect of States, sitting as judges and jurors, see to it that here no sail is trimmed to catch a passing breeze of applause or acclamation. Let us see to it that no coward thought of 

praise or blame creeps into the wavering balances in which truth is to be weighed. When the din and sensation of this hour are forgotten, when we have left these seats forever, when the volume of our lives shall be closed, when the relics of these times shall be "gathered 

into History's golden urn," let there be found in this painful case a record showing that the American Senate was calm enough, firm 

enough, trustful enough to maintain the genius, the spirit, the methods 

and the safeguards of the Constitution as our fathers gave them to us. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN obtained the :floor. 

Mr. SCHURZ. I ask the Senator from New Jersey to yield to me for a single moment, and at the same time I would ask the Senator from New York to favor me with his presence for a moment. 

I desire to make a few remarks of a personal nature, called forth by an allusion made by the Senator from New York. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Very well, sir. 

Mr. SCHURZ. It may be known to those Senators who read the 

Washington Chronicle, of this city, that on the morning of the day 

after I had addressed the Senate on this subject there appeared an article in the Ch1·onicle severely criticising my speech, and stating 

that it was a well-known fact that this immaculate reformer wa.s in 

the habit of receiving $200, and had done so in the late campaign, for 

the political speeches he made. 

Mr. CONKLING. I never saw the article and never heard of it 

until tbis moment. 

Mr. SCHURZ. I merely desire to say that t"Qe Senator, in all probability, if he did not see it in the Chron-icle, it having been so widely 

scattered throughout the newspaper press of the country, bas seen it 

in some other paper. 

Mr. CONKLING. Never in connection with this case, and never lately. 

Mr. SCHURZ. "Never in connection with this caso, and never lately," but be has seen it. 

Mr. CONKLING. In times past; yes. 

Mr. SCHURZ. I was a little surprised, after all the friendly dis- cus.<~ions that we have had during this winter, discussions so courte- ous after so arduous and bitter a presidential canvass, that the Senator should make au allusion in his speech which it seemed to me, as it must have seemed to every one who bad seen these rumors, bore 

directly upon me when be spoke of one who made speeches advocating the cause of this or that party for $200 a day. I think it will be 

agreeable to the Senator to know that this entire story is an absolute 

and unmitiga-ted fabrication, that the humble inclividual who stands 

before him not only did not ask or receive $200 for any of the 

speeches he made in the last campaign, but did not receive a single 

cent. 

Mr. CONKLING. .M the Senator is especially addressing me, shall 

I understand him now to refer to the last campaign alone, or does he mean by his statement to cover previous campaigns 7 

l'tlr. SCHURZ. The Senator knows very well that a little over a year ao-o charges of a similar nature were made against me in the 

New York Times, that I took occasion to reply to those charges upon 

this :floor in every detail, and that I pronounced the charges connected 

with this subject, attributing to me the exaction of large aniDB and all 

that, unmitigated slanders. • As to the late campaign, I desire to say to the Senator, and take 

this opportunity of informing the Senate and those who may have seen the reports referred to, that not only did I not receive or exact or take $200, but not a single cent; and in order to inform the Senator more particularly still, so that when be shall have occasion to 

speak on this subject again he may know what is the truth, I will 

tell him that during that late campaign I received, unsolicited, un- called for, nnsuggested, a small remittance from liberal republican sources in New York to cover my outlays, which remittance covered 

about one-half of what I had paid myself out of my own pooket for 

campaign documents. Not only, I say, is that charge false, but when- ever any compensation during that campaign was offered me, and 

it was so in perhaps a dozen instances, I uniformly refused to take a single cent. 

But let me express my surprise that after a session like the one we have gone through, when the bitter controversies of the campaign 

seemed to have been utterlly forgotten, after we have carried on all 

tBe discussions occurring in this body in a courteous ind friendly 

spirit, now at last, unprovoked, a Senator should feel called upon to 

make so insidious an allusion as that. I must confess that I do not 

understand the propriety of it, and I am surprised at the spirit of it. 

This is what I have to say to the Senator from New York. I do not 

wish to engage in any personal discussion with him. We have bad 

such before, and if I do not further interrupt the tenor of these debates by continuing !mch things now, the Senator knows very well 

that it is not from any apprehension of the consequences. 

Mr. CONKLING. I ask the Senator from New Jersey to indulge me · one moment. 

The Senator from Missouri has chosen to seize upon this occasion 

to do two things:> First, to exonerate himself from charges made 

against him. With that I have nothing to do; at least I should have 

nothing to do but for one fact, to which I will allude in a moment. 

Secondly, the Senator takes occasion to read me a lecture in regard to an argument or illustration I introduced to the Senate. I deny his 

right thus to criticise me, and I say to him that he puts himself in 

the attitude of assuming that be alone has been guilty of this practice, that it is so exceptional and exceptionable that it has not prevailed with others, but with him alone. However that may be, I say 

to the Senator that, whether he has or bas not received $200 a night 

for speeches, I shall, on any ()Ccasion when a question in the Senate 

is to be tested by the inquiry, comment on the propriety of receiving money for such services. I shall ask, what are the distinctions 

between its receipt in such a case and in another f I have no apology 

to make to the Senator from Missouri, but I stand by the propriety 

and fitness of what I said. 

One other word, Mr-. Presiuent. If the honorable Senator from 

Missouri on this :floor bas ever denied that money was paid him for 

making speeches in past campaigns I did not hear it. I should grieve 

to hear it. I repeat, that the Senator may bear me, I should grieve 

to hear him deny that money bas been paid to him in past campaigns 

for making political speeches. He forces me to say this because he 

arraigns me and reminds me that on a previous occasion be denied 

charges made in the New York Times. Yes, Mr. President, I heard 

him deny charges made in the New Ym·k Times. I did not hear him, 

and I venture to predict I shall never hear him deny in my presence 

that be has received money in past campaigns for making political 

speeches. I hope the Sena.tor will not put me to the locality, the occa.- sioo, and the time. If he should, I might feel called upon to respond. 

Mr. SCHURZ. The explanation given now by the Senator corre- sponds with the spirit of the original allusion. I did not say, and never have said, and never shall say, that in former campaigns Irefused to take from political committees that which was to compensate me for the expenses I ba-d myself incurred. Neither do I think 

that many men, not in official position, if a.ny, have ever declined to 

accept such re-imbursement. Neither do I think there is any impropriety in it. A year ago last Jan nary I stated on this :floor that during 

fifteen years of campaigning, having spoken in almost every State of 

the Union outside of the Southern States, being myself poor and having no money to spare, but devoting week after week, and month 

after month, to campaign work, I not only did take, but had a right 

to take, nay, was obliged to take, compensation for my services equal 

to the expenses which I incurred, for the simple reason that, without 

it, it would have been impossible for me to do that work to which I was invited and urgently pressed. 

I have not at this moment before me the Globe conta.ining the re- marks to which I have referred, but deferring the reading until I shall 

obtain it I wish to address another word to the Senator from New 

York, and then let us test the decency of his personal allusion on this 
134 CONGRESSION.AJi RECORD. MARCH 20; 

occasion. I have no fault to find with the tone of any argument that 

he has made. He is at perfect liberty to make any argument he 

pleases; but when he interrupts the amenities of our debates in a manner entirely unprovoked, to make so insidious an allusion to 

slanders which have been circulated about one Senator on this floor, 

I ask him, what would he think if within these days a rumor had 

been spread in the newspapers charging him with having received 

$10,000 as a fee from the Central Pa-cific Railroad to represent their 

interests, and if I in a speech made an allusion to that fact, and made 

it in such way as to point to him Y Would he not question the right 

and the decency of snch an act 7 

Mr. CONKLING. If the Senator likes me to answer--

1\Ir. SCHURZ. ~es, sir. 

Mr. CONKLING. I would rise to denounce as a liar any man who 

made the statement, and I would authorize the Senator to say to any man who told him so that he lied, and to refer him to me; but I should 

not find fault with the Senator for hearing the rumor, or for making a remark which had nothing in the world to do with it, which I chose 

to take to myself, upon the principle that a hit bird flutters. 

1\Ir. SCHURZ. Precisely. Then, sir, I will accept the Senator's 

own statement, and I will say that those from whom he took the information upon which that allusion is based lied, and I authorize him 

to tell them so. Mr. CONKLING. Let me understand that. Does the Senator 

authorize me to tell any man he lies who says now that, in past cam- paigns, specific sums, so much a speech, hav-e been paid to and re- ceived by the Senator from Missouri Y 

Mr. SCHURZ. I authorize the Senator to tell every man that he 

lies who in the first place charges me with having received $200 for 

any--

Mr. CONKLING. I have not said $200. 

1\Ir. SCHUftZ. Stop; I have the floor now-with having received 

$200 for every or any speech in the late campaign; and then I authorize him to charge the man who denies the truth of the statement I am now going to read aa a liar again. That will cover the case, I 

think; will it not f 

Mr. CONKLING. I wish to thank the Senator for the very direct 

and luminous answer he has given to the question. 

Mr. SCHURZ. I think it will be still more luminous in a little 

while. Here it is, and if the Senate will now permit me to read, then 

the Senator from New York will get as much light upon the subject as he needs to discharge the duty as he himself defined it. I read 

from the Congressional Globe, January 8, 1872: 

The second charge is that in the national campaign of 1860 I refused to make 

o,ny speeches unless I waa paid 1250 a. week, and then an additional sum by the 

local committees, varying from $50 to $100 for each speech. This is a falsehood 

again. I commenced canvassing t.he United States in that campaign on the 1st of 

JUly, having already made several speeches previously, and continued till the day of election, the 6th of November, with the exception of about ten days, when I was utterly broken down by fatigne and had to take some rest. I spoke in the States 

of Wisconsin, Illinois, Missouri, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New YorkWhere I had the honor to speak from the same platform with the 

SenatorNew Jersey, and Connecticut, traveled a great many thousands of miles, nnd made, 

if I remember correctly, between one hundred and sixty and one hundred anu seventy speeches; and when I had returned home from those labors I found that 

all the compensation I had received from committees fell quite perceptibly short 

of my actual expenses-railroad fare and those incidental outlays connected with 

traveling of that nature. Moreover, having given myself entirely up to the labors of the campaign, com- pletely neglecting my private affairs, I found myself surrounded by disagreeable embarrassments, which resulted finally in painful sacrifices, and if 1 had received 

only one-fifth part of what the Times charges me with, I should have overcome those embarrassments easily. I do not 'hesitate to say, however-and I refer to this becanse mention baR been made of this subject in debate in the Senate-that, as a prudent man, I ought to have done something like that which the Times 

charged upon me, although, of course, in a more moderate degree; for I believe 

that gentlemen may be expected to go out at their own expense, and make a speech now and then in promotion of a political cause ; but when they are called upon t.o go from camp~an in~ ca';llpaign y~ar a~r year, for several months at a time, utterly neglectmg therr pnvate lutaJ.rs, gJ.Vmg themselves wholly up to the work, 

unless they are entirely independent in fortune, they cannot afford to do so without 

re-imbursement and compensation. I will say, further, that in a few subsequent campai~s, when lists of appointments covering weeks and months were sent to me, I did to some extent protect myself in that respect, in a moderate way, how- ever, wlu"e i..Q o~er cll!Dpaigns I neglected, even after my previous experiences, to look after m.:> pnvate mterests. Moved by curiosity, after having read the Times's article, I undertook to figure 

up how much time I bad spent in pnblic speaking for the republican cause since 1856, and I found it to be from seventy to seventy-two weeks, or about a year and five months; and adding up also all that I received from the committees 

during that whole time, I find thai it amounts in the aggregate to less than a. popular lecturer will earn in three weeks. 

I mention this snbject mereJy, although it is a very humiliating one, because it 

shows the meanness of the warfare which is carried on against certain members of 

this body. It is humiliating, I say, to make such a statement ; but it is still more humiliating that a paper, the organ of an administration which stands at the head 

of a party that has been built up in its power gradnally and laboriously by jnsi 

such labors as those in which I, with many others, was engaged, should make such 

explanations necessary. 

If the Senator fromNewYorkwill take this statement, together with 

anything I said about the other story, and find anybody to contradict 

it, I authorize him to say that he lies. 

Mr. CONKLING. Mr. President, I will take leave of this subject by saying that the remark I made contained no allusion to the Senator 

from Missouri, although I had seen in the papers-not recently, however-that money had been charged by him, and paid to him, for making political speeches. I had heard of it in other cases also, and in 

my remark there. was po allusion to him . I put it as one of several 

cases, to test a distinction; I introduced it as an argument which I 

believed then and believe now just and fair. · The Senator from Missouri, who has seen recently in the papers something I have not seen, 

took it for granted, in consequence of articles he has read, that I was traveling out of my way to make an assault upon him, and accordingly he has brought the matter up. I have only to add that, notwithstanding the somewhat tart remark, and, as I think, grossly improper insinuation he made at one point of his observations, I had and 

I have no feeling of personal unkindness toward him; and had the 

Senator not called attention to this subject it never would have oc- curred to me that he thought or supposed that I was selecting him or making an attack upon him. 

Mr. SCHURZ. Mr. President, I should be very glad to take the ex- planation now made by the Senator from New York as it is given; 

but I am very sorry to say that when an allusion is made with such 

particularity as this was made, the allusion can hardly have not been 

intended to have some personal bearing. When the Senator from 

New Y Qrk says that he has no personal feeling against me I am sure that I have given no cause for any; that my conduct upon this :floor, 

my tone in debate, my personal discussions, with whatever Senator 

it may have been, have not been of such a character as to provoke 

any personal unkindness. But I again bring home to him that if I 

had made such a remark as I alluded to with regard to taking a fee 

:from a railroad company, which it would be very far from me to do-, if I had made such a remark upon the ground of statements circulated 

by the newspapers, I would not call it improper on the part of 

the Senator from New York, if he called the attention of the Senate 

to it. I should call it very proper indeed if he should hold me to 

account for it in the strongest language he could command. I know 

how personal allusions are made in speeches; and when the Senator 

made his allusion my mind could not escape the conclusion, nor could the mind of any Senator acquainted with the circumstances, 

that that allusion was meant for me. If he now says that it was not, 

very well; let it go. I do not want to have any personal controversy with any one on this floor. I do not shrink from it when it is 

forced upon me ; but I certainly do not seek it when there is no ·provocation. 

Mr. CONKLING. The Senator evidently wants the last word; but 

at the expense of prolonging an unworthy matter, I venture to make 

another observation. I mean what I have said. I mean to let it 

stand. I differ wifu the Senator when he affirms that he has done 

nothing calculated to awaken in me any feeling unfriendly to him. 

I, too, know the modes by which a man by covert insinuation, not 

bold, manages to say what the Senator has now said, for example, 

and then shrinks from it and disclaims a willingness to say it. I 

know how, during the last session of Congress, I, in common with 

others, was covered with insinuations and with accusatione, false in 

fact, which the Senator ha.d no right to make, and which, as much as any other, he was art and part in. Therefore he must pardon me for 

dissenting when he says that he has so conducted himself in the Senate as to provoke the resentment of no man. The Senator a moment ago seemed to intimate some doubt as to 

my sincerity, when I said that my remark did not single him out. 

The fact that the Senator deems it proper to feel such a doubt and to 

suggest it, not only forbids my saying anything further to relieve 

him, but, had he suggested such a doubt in season, I would cer- tainly not have uttered even the qualifying words which I did. 

Mr. SCHURZ rose. Mr. CONKLING. The Senator wants the last word. I promise 

him that he ehall have it, because whatever he may say I will not 

be led farther in this dialogue. 

1\Ir. SCHURZ. Mr. President, when the Senator from New York 

got up and said I wanted to have the last word, it seemed to me that 

be rather insisted upon having it himself. Now, when the Senator 

alludes to debates we had during the last session, I am sure that I 

have no reason to retra.ct a single word I then said. But I think also 

that, a long time having elapsed between that period and this, a bitter 

campaign having been gone through with, and we having met here 

again, months ago, again on friendly terms, and having passed through 

three or four months of animated but courteous debate, then it is ex- traordinary indeed that a Senator should feel called upon to indulge 

in such flings as have fallen from the lips of the Senator to-day. 

I am rather glad to see him abandon the explanation he gave us once this evening, that he had not intended any allusion to me. I am glad he retracted that, for had he not placed the matter in the right 

light, 1 would. And there I will let this ca-se rest. 

Mr. CAMERON. Mr. President--

The VICE-PRESIDENT. The Senator from New Jersey is entitled 

to the floor. 

Mr. CAMERON. The Senator from New Jersey has been kind enough 

to allow me to rise to what I believe to be a privileged question. 

The VICE-PRESIDENT. The Senator from Pennsylvania. will proceed. 

Mr. CAMERON. Mr. President, a.s the Senate well know, my voice 

is not a very strong one, and I rise, therefore, with some fear that I 

shall not be heard or understood iu the prevailing storm which is 

raging. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I hope order will be preserved. 

The VICE-PRESIDENT. The Senator from Pennsylvania will 

pause. Senators will be good enough to resume their seats. Order 

must be preserved in the Senate. 
i873. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. 135 

Mr. CAMERON. When i came into the Senate this morning, rather 

iate, from my committee-room, I found the Senator from Maryland 

[Mr. HAMILTON] making a speech, a part of which I heard, and only a small part. I found my name mentioned, and I took the liberty of 

going to our excellent reporter and asking him to give me a copy of 

what was said by the Senator from Maryland in regard to myself. He 

did so, and I will read it if the Senate will allow me to do so. 1\Ir. CARPENTER. It is impossible for the Senator to be beard in 

the prevailing storm which is beating on the glass roof above us. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive busi- ness. The motion was agreed to; and the Senate proceeded to the con- sideration of executive business. 

After forty-four minutes spent in executive session, the doors were re-opened. 

Mr. FERRY, of Michigan. I move that the Senate do now adjourn. 

The motion was agreed to; there being, on a division-ayes 29, noes 22; and (at four o'clock and tweh-e minutes p.m.) the Senate 

adjourned. 

IN THE SENATE. 

F~.u', Marek 21, 1873. 

The Senate met at lialf past ten o'clock a. m. Prayer by Rev. J.P. NEWMAN, D. D. 

The journal of yesterday's proceedings wa.S read and approved. 

FINANCES~ 

M'r. FENTON. 1\ir. President, I offer the £oliow1ng tesolution: 

Resolved, That the Committee on Finance be directed to inquire what measlire or measures can be adopted by the Government which shall give to the country a cur- rency convertible into gold at the will of the holder, thus securing grea~r stability in the exchanges of trade, in the work of production and investment, and in the 

compensations of labor; and to report, by bill or otherwise, at the next session of 

Congress. 

Mr. CAMERON. I ask that that resolution lie over. 1\Ir. FENTON. Anticipating, under the practice of the Senate, that 

there might be some objection to the consideration of this resolution 

to-dav, I ask that it mav lie over and be printed. 

The VICE-PRESIIlENT. That order will be made, if there be no 

objection. 

CLERK OF CLAYTON INVESTIGATING COMMITTEE. 

J.Ir. WRIGHT. I offer the following resolution: 

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate be, and be is bereoy, authorized and 

directed to pay the clerk of the special committee of the Senate, appointed to in- vestigate charges against Ron. POWELL CLAYTON, the usual . per diem compen- sation of clerks to committees, from the 1st to the 31st day o£ March, 1873, inclu. 

siva. 

The r'3solution was considered by unanimous consent and agreed to. 

THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.· 

J.fr. SHERMAN. I rise to submit a resolution which I suppose will 

be adopted without objection, (and, if there be no objection, the Secretary can reduce it to forml) that the Public Printer be directed to furnish to each Senator two copies of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, com- plete and bound, at the end of this called session. I suppose there will 

be no objection to it, a-s it is necessary to have them. No Senator now has a complete file of the RECORD, (at least, I suppose other Senators are like myself,) and my resolution is that two bound copies be furnished to each Senator at the end of the session. 

Mr. CASSERLY. Bound in cloth f 

Mr. SHERMAN. Bound in the ordinary way. Let the Pnblio 

Printer have his own way of binding them. 

The VICE-PRESIDENT. The motion should go to the Committee on Printing, but that reference may be dispensed with by unani- mous consent. ' 

Mr. CAMERON. I object. I think it had better go to the Committee on Printing. 

Mr. SHERMAN'. Very well; let the resolution go to the committee, 

if that is deemed necessary. 

Mr. CAMERON. I am opposed to increasing our printing. We 

have no right to frank documents, and so we ought not to print them. 

The VICE-PRESIDENT. The resolution will be referred to the 

Committee on Printing. 

RULES L.l.MITING DEBATE. 

Mr. WRIGHT. I wish to inquire if the resolution I offered yester:. 

day does not come up. I have nothing to say upon it at all; I merely 

ask that it be referred to the Committee on Rules. 

Mr. MORTON. I suggest to my friend from Iowa that he allow 

that resolution to lie upon the table until after the CALDWELL case is 

disposed of. I think the resolution, if taken up, will only occupy the 

time of the Senate without result. I trust the debate on the pending 

question, the case of the Senator from Kansas, will be allowed to pro- ~ess until it shall be concluded. I see the Senator from New Jersey 

LMr. FRELINGHUYSEN] in his place who had the floor last night. 

Mr. WRIGHT. I certainly have no disposition on earth to inter• 

fere with the debate on the Kansas case. I have surely not given 

any evidence of such a desire. I did not suppose there would be any 

objection to the reference of this resolution. If debate is to follow, I 

shall not press it until the matter now before the Senate is disposed 

of. I simply ask that the resolution be referred to the Committee on Rules. If there can be any objection to that, if discussion is to 

follow, I shall not press it at this time. 

Mr. MORTON. Let me say to my friend that I think discussion 

will follow, from the fact that there are some members of this body 

who are so much opposed to any resolution of this character that they are unwilling even to countenance it by a reference. The Senator 

bas had some evidence of that already. I think debate will follow on this resolution, and therefore I call for the regular order. . Mr. WRIGHT. I understood the Senator from Ohio [Mr. THURMAN] to ask me the other morning why I did not offer such a rule as I 

proposed, and have it referred to the committee as a matter of course. I have pursued that very course, and supposed this proposition would 

be referred to the committee as a matter of course. 

Mr. THURMAN. No ; the Senator misunderstood me. t perhaps 

spoke in less perspicuous language than I am accustomed to use, but 

that was not my meaning. I said there was no necessity to make· that inquiry, that the Senator could offer amendments to the ruleshimself, and the nsnal practice in such a case was that they would 

go to the committee; but not necessarily that they would go there.- .E 

said then, if he offered them himself, we would see in what form the 

thing came, and if it came in a form that the Senate would not adopt, at all, that the Senate would not have anything to do with, of course the Senate would not take the trouble to send it to a commi~ 

tee. I do not wish, however, to take up time on this matter now. I 

hope the reglllar order may not be interfered with by this proposition, 

for which there is no pressing necessity. It can be considered after. the regular order is disposed of if necessary, or at the beginning of 

the next session, just as well as now .. Mr. SHERMAN. The motion is exactly in order, because during 

the morning hour the real thing that is pending is resolutions on the 

table, which are in the nature of morning business. 

Mr. THURMAN. Have we a morning hour at an executive sessi'ort 

like this f 

Mr. SHERMAN. i wish to state to my friend from iowa, witli 

whose object I sympathize heartily, and also to my colleague andother members of the Senate, that this matter of the adoption of a;· 

rule to regulate the order of business and dobate, it is true, cannot be 

disposed of at this session, but it must be disposed of at the next ses-· sian. 1\Iy colleague said the other day that we got along very well! 

during the last session. I say we did not. I say that more than two= 

thirds of the last session was consumed in unnecessary debate, and. 

the business of this country to-day suffers from the conduct of the· 

Senate during the last session. Why, sir, we were not able to con ... aider the great question of the currency and the public debt. My' 

colleague, who is opposed to all rules to cut off debate, suddenly 

sprang a motion to lay on the table one of the most important bills 

offered at the last session, without debate, without any opportunit.y 

to debate. A temporary majority can cut off debate at any time by a motion to lay on the table, and thus defeat important meastires.-

Everybody feels at this moment, every business man in the country 

feels, that the business interests of the country are suffering, because 

of the want of action at the last session of Congress one way or the 

other on that important subject. Our currency is depreciating daily 

in the transaction of business. 

Take, again, the case of Louisiana. There is a peopie that i do 

believe from the bottom of my heart are suffering under a govern-· 

ment that is irregular in many respects; and we could not dispose of 

the Louisiana question, a question involving the safety and character' 

of a State, and perhaps the peace of the country, because time waSunnecessarily consumed here in debate, not only on that question but 

on other questions. . . . . We did at the last session nothing that affects the great interests 

of this country. All we did at the last session was to pass the appro.: 

priation bills, and nothing could be got through of a general cha.rac.: 

ter unless it was thrust on the appropriation bills. 

Sir, I believe in the freedom of debate. I believe 1 can caU on Senators to testify that I have never endeavored to suppress debate 

where it was upon the subject-matter and conducted in the ordinary 

way. But, sir, I say that three or four or five members of the Senate 

may prevent the business of the country from being transacted; they' 

may defeat any measure. Take a case, in regard to which my col.: 

league will sympathize with me, the case of the steamboat law, whicli 

affects an interest of hundreds of millions of dollars of property in 

this country and the commerce of the great rivers. . _ . . Mr. HOWE. Mr. President, I rise to a question of order.- I do no£ 

know what the pending question is; but I rise to submit, not so much 

to the Chair as to the Senator from Ohio, that the line of remark he 

is pursuing I think tends toward legislation. If so, I certainly think; 

under the rule that was adopted la-st week at his instance, he is out 

of order to-day.. [Laughter.] 

Mr. SHERMAN.· Now, I am going to illustrate how utterly fnde'-· pendent of the rules of order any Senator on this :floor is. What do 

I care for your rules of order t On this very question I could make a· dozen motions upon which I could speak for two days if my physical strength would hold out. I could move to postpone the question a.nd 

discuss that. I could make the debate that I am now making on th& 

proposition to declare the election of Mr. CALDWELL invalid. I couldl 

make it in any way. I could talk about anything, andnomotioncall' 

prevent me. Why, sir, I may talk about the recent trouble in the•