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

i in regard TO that Senator. VIII the otner oo
tor say the samef ..:-..
shonJd he taken upon difference of facts as al
Legged by the Senator from Illinois and myself,
and the testimony justified my allegation | ex-
pressly stated, at the subsequent session, that |
had desired testimony at the first session because
of the allegations of the protestants not knowing
at that tame that my views of the facts, and the
facts as / knew them to exist, were set forth in
the House journal but, being furnished with
copy of that journal subsequently, the other proof
became a matter of secondary consideration, as
the Senator from Maine doubtless knows ] stated
at the time. Yet dispositions were taken, were
sent to the committee, were read to the Senate,
and had an important bearing on the case.
Mr.. FESSENDEN. shall not enter into a dis
pute with the Senator from Indiana as to the
facts. / know what / am stating, and nobody
can deny it. Time was requested; and on the
very occasion when that time was requested, the
journal of the Senate was here; all the papers
were here the journal of the House was here
Mr.. PUGH. The journal of the House was not
before the committee at that time.
Mr.. FESSENDEN. | understand that it was
Mr.. BENJAMIN. j never saw the journal of
the House until the ensuing Congress
Mr.. PUGH. Nor /.
Mr.. BENJAMIN 1t was brought from Indiana
at the ensuing session.
Mr. FESSENDEN Very well when it came
at the beginning of the ensuing session, was it
not here when further time was asked for2
Mr.. BENJAMIN. | never saw it until the very
close of the case.
| Mr. FESSENDEN. | do not know whether
| the Senator saw it, but it was here.
Mr.. BENJAMIN. | was a member of the COM
mittee, and it was not brought before the COM
mittee, by anybody, until towards the close of
the session.
Mr. C0LLAMER. | cannot say, certainly, that
each of the various papers in this case was here
| at that time. 1t will be recollected by the Sen
ate, that when an application was made for a
continuance, for the purpose of taking testimony,
report was made by the minority of the com
mittee, contending that, instead of granting time
to take testimony, the Senate should proceed to
| the consideration of the case, and they stated
the facts. Not single fact that they stated has
ever been changed since.
| Mr.. FESSENDEN. ] know, that although time
was given at the extra session, and although fur
| Their time was given at the regular session
Mr.. PUGH. None given at the extra session.
| Mr.. FESSENDEN. Well, a report was made
in favor of it, and it went over; time was given
| at the regular session. When that time expired,
which was months afterwards, no testimony was
| presented by those who claimed the seats here
not particle. They presented afhdavits---
Mr. FITCH. cannot permit such wholesale
statements, wanting the proper foundation in
fact, to go uncontradicted. Dispositions were
taken by the sitting members they were pre-
scented, and went in testimony.
| Mr.. FESSENDEN. | understand that they
were mere ez pdrte affidavits that they were not
taken on notice.
Mr.. FITCH. Simply because they were in this
| city, and were not accessible in Indiana
| Mr. FESSENDEN. That makes no difference.
| If they were to be taken in this city, they could
be taken without all that time being granted. |
know that when that matter came back, the test
imony that was taken was by the contestants, to
meet what they supposed would be urged on the
other side; but no testimony was taken in Indiana
| by those who claimed the seats, or, at any rate,
none was presented that ever | saw.
Mr.. FITCH. That is likewise an error.
Mr.. FESSENDEN. Was it presented to the
committee?
Mr.. FITCH. Gentlemen appeared there in ouI
behalf, who cross-questioned the witnesses; and
when they desired to present their own witnesses
they were refused the privilege of so doing by
your friends, for fear they would prove too much
! to please them.
| Mr.. FESSENDEN They could have takeT
their testimony on notice at any time it was moi
in the mouth of our friends to object For gen.
tlemen to say they took testimony because they
cross examined the other party's witnesses, is
iaaa rlor-ssr- r,.it-cru
|
bers taking testimony on notice in the regular
form.
But, sir, passing from that we came back here
and the Senate passed the vote that it did aftel
debate, admitting these gentlemen to their seats
There was no report, statement of facts
nothing upon which anybody could Judge, ex
cept the statements that were made on the on,
side and the other in the Senate. There was no
a regular case made up, as it has been usual L
| w pn info rod h.
the Senate, especially when there are two sides
to the question. The argument was had, and i
was decided as | have stated. It was had upor
resolution; and it was adduced in that argu-
ment as strong and material element-the Sen.
ators on the other side will recollect that they
adduced it themselves-that there was nobod,
here properly TO contest these seats that we die
not hear from the State of Indiana that we die
not hear from the Legislature of Indiana thai
there was no contesting party before the court
That was argument relied upon
Well, sir, the Legislature of Indiana meets a
the proper time under its Constitution. 1t take.
warning from what has been said by Senator.
here in their arguments. 1t draws up its protest
1t makes its statement; it petitions this body In
respectful terms to hear it it takes up the case
which had been dropped for want of a party, and
says: 1--WE are a party to this matter; we will
ask the Senate of the United States. respectfully
TO consider our petition on the subject of the
Senators from the State of Indiana; and in
order to make that valid and efIectua to show
their view OF it in case they should succeed and
the State of Indiana should be considered as not
having been represented up to that period they
elected gentlemen to take these seats if it should
turn out that there was vacancy in the Senate
from the State of Indiana; and those gentlemen
present themselves here, and submit their petit
ton. They come here in respectful manner
they present themselves with all the respect that
IS due TO this body. Respectfully, and even
humbly-thst is to say with all the humility
which becomes State, which is not meauness
but manliness-the Legislature of Indiana pre-
sent themselves before the Senate, and say "Our
opinion is that we are not represented: and these
seats are vacant, and we ask you to reconsider
your action, and admit those whom we have
elected to fill these places
we are the supreme power; we direct our own
proceedings; but, let me tell the Senator from
Delaware 1t is no answer to say that this cannot
be reconsidered, simply because there is no
power which can revise and correct our errors.
Tn the contrary, say, if there is no power which
can revise and correct our errors the more the
reason why we should revise and correct them
ourselves. The argument that is advanced by
gentlemen on this floor comes to this: awe de-
eide question-and admit, for the sake of the
argument, we decide it wrongly-in matter
entirely within our own jurisdiction, and over
which we are supreme; therefore, because we are
supreme, we have no right to correct that erro-
neous decision of our own" Sir, that is no ar
gument addressing itself to the mind of any man
If believed, for a moment, that the Senate o.
the United States had no power to correct its
own proceedings, in a matter exclusively within
its jurisdiction, should believe Ito carry out
little further the idea of the Senator from New
York; we were in position to call for the action
of the people to overlook them, to deprive them
or limit them in the exercise, of the powers
which they enjoyed. Sir, we are liable to error
But il has been arpued here very pravelv and