The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1859-04-07

viii he not hear herr Is she to be denounced
as traitorous and her members as scoundrels
think that will hardly be done. That was tn,
ground taken year ago in this body: that thu
State of Indiana was not then here, contestine
the seats. The case is now different. Indians
is now here, through her proper department, anG
that changes the parties, according to the argu
ment of the Senators from Georgia and Louisi
ana.
But, sir, other persons are now here. The
gentlemen who have laid their credentials upor
your table, which were referred to the Commit
tee on the Judiciary, and have been reported
back, were not Senators elect of the State of In.
diana at the time when the question was taker
upon the rights of the sitting Senators to theil
seats. They had not then been elected They
had no right then to claim seats Their rights
have arisen SINCE and could not have been pass
ed upon, and could not be precluded by any de-
cision made before then, or before the case arose
which is now submitted for the consideration Of
the Senate.
l should not have taken up so much time il
the contestants had been allowed to present their
own case. / am sorry that have been COM
PEELED to discuss the question at all. was for
allowing the legally -constituted representatives
of Indiana the right to come here and present
their case; but the Senate refused that; and
then, as the next best thing, have endeavored
sistance which we should have had if those gem
tlemen were here to argue their case. am as
tonished that they are denied that privilege. In
the House of Representatives, in the case to
which have alluded, Messrs Prentiss and Word
were admitted upon the floor of the House OF
Representatives, and argued their right to seats
and they had been elected after the decision in
favor of Gholson and Claiborne, just as Lane
and McCarty have been elected after the decis-
~ &c 81 80 -. c.
are precisely analogous.
In this body, when a contest arose some few
years ago between sitting member and a claim
ant, the~claimant was admitted upon the floor of
the Senate, and allowed to argue his case,
although the committee unanimously, believe,
reported against his right, and the vote of the
Senate was unanimous against him. Such was
the courtesy of Senators-although there was
indifference of opinion in the Committee on the
Judiciary, although they thought there was no
question as to the right of the sitting Senator
and it was so clear that believe there was en-
tire unanimity in the body-still they heard the
claimant. Hele is a case where the committee
is divided where different opinions are known
to prevail on different sides of the Senate and
yet, the claimants are to be turned away and
the State of Indiana insulted by telling her that
she has undertaken to revise the decision of the
Senate. Sir, she has revised no decision of the
Senate. She has but exercised her constitutional
right to elect Senators, who are now here de-
handing seats to which, in my opinion, they
have a clear and indisputable right.
Mr.. SEWARD. Mr.. President, when this ques-
ton has been heretofore before the Senate it was
one in which | felt considerable degree of in
terest. The subject involved thequestion whether
the two incumbents of the seats from Indiana
had been duly elected, and were justly members
OF this body-a question which, as / have had
occasion before to say is question affecting the
rights of the State of Indiana, sovereign State
of the Union-a question affecting the proper,
legal, constitutional organization of the Senate
of the United States. But still was willing to
let it pass without elaborate discussion or earnest
remonstrance on my part, because it seemed to
me, at the moment, to involve no more than
have thus described. have not at all doubted
that during the existence of the Government
there has been more than one time in which
more than one State of the Union has been rep
resented in the Senate by persons who were not
duly, legally constitutionally elected But, sir
in the course of this debate, the subject has as
sumed new and varied transformations. 1t is
accompanied now by so many strange and ex-
travagant neutrality-suspicious. so danger
Gus to the constitution of this BODY and to the
rights of the States which are its constituents
that cannot suffer the occasion to pass away
without making, with what brevity can prac-
tice some observations in addition to those |
have already submitted.
| am told by the honorable Senator from Della
ware Mr.. BAYARD that have introduced many
unconstitutional heresies into this body. Sir,
time will soon determine whether what are called
heresies to-day not the sound constitutional
principles of fifty years ago, and whether they
will not be found fifty years hence to be true
constitutional principles, and therefore enduring
and pVpra STING | qOhmif nv record N the puh-
lie, with as deep solicitude that l may stand
right before my country and before posterity, as
any other member of this body, or any person
connected with this Government, can entertain.
| impeach none of my contemporaries | abide
their censures, not without self-dstrust but with
composure. But must be permitted to say, that
in all my life have never heard hereses so anti
republican, hereses so unconstitutional heresies
so dangerous, as those which this debate has
called into being. Why, sir, we have. sat here
hour after hour, and have heard learned gen.
temen of the law discuss the question of the
effect of resolution Of the Senate by analogies
derived from the practice and proceedings of
courts of the common law We have had analo-
gies between the proceedings of the Senate and
the process of maandamuS in the State courts, to-
gether with parallels between our own resolu-
tions and judgments, final and interlocutory in
the tribunals of other countries We have heard
the decisions of the Senate, made in the form of
resolutions, pronounced by worthy lawyers to be
in effect identical with judgments in rem, bor-
rowed from the civil law. Because Judgment
of mdRddmuS, or some other inal Judgment en-
tered upon a record, instead of an interlocutory
order, is, without some provision made for its
review, held final in the courts, it is alleged
most illogicaly that the resolutions of this body
are final and irreversible.
Sir, when you have declared that the Senate
has ever made decision which was final and
irrevocable, then you have ascertained one de-
clsion OF this Senate that was infalible; and the
body that has power to make one infallibe udg-
ment, has the power to make more. So each
Senate may anticipate and usurp the functions
of its successor. The principle, then, for which
our assent is demanded, is, that the resolutions
and orders of this Senate upon the subject of
elections are infallible. Gentlemen tell US we
must acquiesce, ont of respect to the Senate
that We must submit, though we think they are
wrong; we must not question them. They plainly
tell US that it is disrespecful it is contemptuous
on the part of the State of Indiana, to protest
against decision Of the Senate as being unjust
or erroneous and we who maintain the appeal
OF Indiana are guilty not merely of discourtesy,
but of cOntumacy.
No man entertains a more profound respect for
the Senate of the United States than do No
man will be found, | trust less likely to do any
act to impair its dignity, its character, or its just
constitutional authority. Nevertheless, deny
absolutely that the Senate of the United States is
possessed of such virtues and such wisdom, and
that it can never err. ! deny that there is any
such constitutional principle in this Government
as that the Senate or the House of Representa-
tives, or any other legislative body, cannot err
On the other hand, maintain that it is of the
very essence of the principles of our whole re-
publican system, that legislative bodies may err
through want OF knowledge, through want of
wisdom, through want, even, of virtue; that they
may act, and do often act under the influence of
assinn nreinlica anahitinr