The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1859-04-14

this in the argument to-day; nor was it contend
ed in the argument of the case originally. 1t Is
admitted on all hands, that the Senate of Indiana,
as Senate, never did agree to the election of
the sitting members. Consequently, as the Senate
has power equal to the power of the House, no
election took place by " the Legislature of lndi-
ana" The Legislature of Indiana to-day plants
itself on the argument of the distinguished Sem
ator from Louisiana, the distinguished Senator
from Delaware, and other distinguished Senators
on this floor, that an election, to be valid, must
be the act of the Legislature, as such, and not
the act of the separate members of the Legisla-
ture 1t must be the act of the Legslature-that
power constituted under the Constitution of the
State as the Legislature-and not the act OF the
distinct and separate elements of the Legislative
body.
Who, then, is inconsistent The Republicans
in the Iowa case voted to sustain the election,
because they believed that the Senate of that
State, having agreed to unite with the House in
joint convention, having formed that joint con-
vention by its own deliberate act, in pursuance
OF law OF the State, could not dissolve it by the
mere absence of a majority of its members, or
render its acts void by mere inattention to its
business but in the case from Indiana there Is
no pretence that the Senate of that State ever
did agree to this election. AS was stated by the
| Senator from Illinois, the Senate of Indiana, I'M
| derstanding that an attempt would be made to
| elect United States Senators in informal and
| irregular way, adopted resolution, and spread
| it on its journal in advance notifying the House
| of Representatives and the world that the Senate
| had not agreed to become party to joint con-
vention for any such purpose and after the cleo
ton had been held, by less than quorum of the
members of the House, and a minority of the
Senate, the Senate protested against its validity,
| and laid that protest on your table, demanding
| that the sitting Senators should not be admitted
| to seats as Senators from Indiana. The protest
was disregarded. The applicants were admitted
| temporarily to seats. The protest and their Gre
dentials were referred to the Judiciary Commit
tee, and many months thereafter the parties were
authorized to take testimony. In the mean time
| the Legislature had adjourned; the protesting
| Senate was resolved into its original elements,
| and dispersed; there was no longer an official
| Senate, capable of acting, in existence. The sit
ting Senators collected testimony. The Judiciary
Committee heard this parte history of the cleo
ton, reported in their favor, and the Senate
| frmed the decision of the committee But, in the
process of tine, the Indiana Legislature is again
| convened. The journals of the proceedings of
| their predecessors examined, and they find
| by their record that no legal election of United
| States Senators had been held to fill the vacant
| seats The Legislature of Indiana, legally assem-
| bled by concurrent vote of both branches me-
morializes the Senate of the United States, and
alleges that no legal election of Senators had
| been held at the previous session that the seats
then vacant are still unoccupied by legally elect
| ed Senators they hold an election, according to
| the laws and usages of the State, and forward
| their memorial to the President of the Senate,
| and ask to be heard at your bar and the Repub-
| lican Senators willing to hear her own argu-
| ment of her own case.
| | have but little patience with the idea that
this is insult to the Senate; that the approach
| of one of the sovereignties, of which this Con-
fedsracy is composed, to the Senate, in respect
ful manner, by her memorial, properly authenti-
Gated and directed to the Presiding Officer of
| this House, with a request to be heard as to the
| legality and validity of her own act is an in
| suit to the Senate of the United States
| Mr.. PUGH. Will the Senator tell me who has
said that? | have heard that man of straw set
up about dozen times, to be knocked down.
| should like to know who said it was an insult
| Who has used the expression2
| Mr.. HARLAN. | understood the chairman of
the committee, few days since, in presenting
| this case to distinctly announce that he regarded
it as an insult to the Senate of the United States
| Mr.. BAYARD. / used no such language and
| / have repeated this explanation several times
| j said the act of election in the face of the de-
cision of the Senate, was disrespect to the body.
Mr.. HARLAN. Have heard the explanation
of the honorable Senator from Delaware, that it
is "dsrespectful to the Senate of the United
States to ask to be heard as to the legality of its
| own acts
Mr.. BAYARD. No; do not say it was disre-
snectful to memorabilia the Senate at all; but to
assume that IL -, S-natA ures -'-ons,
| and, when the Senate had decided the body was
full, to elect if it was not full was an act of
disrespect. The memorial never characterized
as disrespectful in any way whatever
| MIR. HARLAN. l am glad to be corrected Mr.
| President. would not misrepresent the honor
able Senator, or any other Senator, wilfully. But
it seems to me that even that statement is not
justifable by the facts before the Senate It is
IN effect, saying that it is disrespectful to the
Senate of the United States for the Legislature
of Indiana the electoral college, to assert that it
had not previously acted in the premises When
it examines its own record--and it is bound by
the Constitution of the State to keep journal of
| its prOceedings-it finds that no election accord
ing to the Constitution and usage of Indiana, has
taken place; and, finding the seats vacant, &C.
cording to its own record, it proceeds to fill
them; it elects Senators it furnishes the Sena-
tors elect with credentials. With these creden-
| tials of an election by the Legislature of SOW
ereign State they appear at the bar of the Senate
| and ask to be admitted as its legal representa-
tives. The Legislature, learning that two gen.
| tlemen had previously been admitted to seats as
Senators from that State during its recess pre-
cedes these Senators-elect by memorial giving
in detail, as understand-though the committee
has not favored US with report on the allega-
| tons OF this memorial history of their own
| action in the premises and also history of the
| election OF the sitting Senators, and alege that
| the supposed election was not the act of the
| Legislature of Indiana; that, when the supposed
! election took place. the Senate of Indiana was
| not present; that quorum of the House was not
! present that the act was unauthorized and not
| binding on the State. No other power on earth
could elect United States Senators for Indiana
but its Legislature These seats were vacant
| when the Legislature was previously last in ses-
sion. No election was held by the Legislature
| Hence these seats must be still legally vacant.
and they elect gentlemen to fill them.
In what consists the disrespect2 By her own
record the Legislature of Indiana knew when va
cancies in this body, from that State occurred
| by her own record she knew that no election had
| been held By her own record she knew that
these seats were still vacant. She proceeds to fill
them; sends gentlemen here with certificates. and
| memorializes the Senate, calling its attention
through its Presiding Officer, to the facts in de-
tail, which she regarded as violation of her
sovereignty.
| cannot perceive, in this whole procedure. a
single element of disrespect to the Senate of the
| United States and if these gentlemen are to be
| spurned from the Senate Chamber are not per-
mitted to enter its portals as other Senators
| elect, it will be an uncalled-for ndgnity to one
| of the sovereign members of this Confederacy
| They have right to be heard They have a
| right to demand it in the name of sovereign
| State. They have right to demand by what
authority this Senate sets aside her own inter
| probation of her own laws, and denies her even a
hearing at its bar. / understand that the Su-
preme Court of the United States will not over
rule the Interpretation of the laws and official
acts of State, as construed by its own supreme
| judiciary Harmony among the members of the
| COntpderaCy rPQuirps that the indipial