The Bedford gazette. [volume] (Bedford, Pa.) 1805-current, 1862-03-14
SENATOR sTARKE.

The Senator selected by the Governor OF Or
cgon, Mr.. SrARkE, has been admitted to his seat.
To show the reasons of the opposition to him,
we quote the following from the proceedings of
/ the Senate. The Committee had reported in his
favor:
/ Mr.. Sumner offered an amendment to the res
otution reported by the Committee, so as to make
iit read that Mr.. Starke be not entitled to take
the oath without an investigation into his loyalty.
/ He spoke at some length in favor of the a.
Emendment contendin@ that the Senate, in self
defence, ought not to admit a suspicion Of dis
iloyalty, and it was not Justice TO the people of
fOrcgon to admit disloyal representation, which
yas, in fact, no representation Of their will lie
tclaned, that the afidavits in the case were wor-
! thy of investigation, and the Senate was bound
to meet disloyalty on the threshold.
Mr.. Cowan, Rep., of Pennsylvania, said that
if members were to be excluded bv mere caprice,
t NC could not tell on whom the blow would next
fall. The question is, what is this thing disloy-
( Ialty? He would like the Senator from Massa-
lehusetts to define it.
/ Mr.. Sumner read from letter to the Secrc-
tary of State, signed by thirteen citizens of Or
legon, stating that they knew Mr.. Starke, and he
had been in the habit Of openly talking against
/ the Government and in favor Of the South; say
/ ing that the South was right and ought to sue
ceed. If these facts were true, the claimant
+ from Oregon was disloyal, and when such facts
were presented to the Senate if they fail to con-
| slider them they solemnly stultay themselves
That was his answer.
Mr.. Howard, (Rep.,) of Michigan, called at
tention to other evidence, where Mr.. Starkc had
J said that if there was war with the South he
would sell his property for fifty cents On the dol
! lar and 90 and fight for the South.
Mr.. Cowan said he had asked a definition and
got an example. He was just us wise as he was
before Did disloyalfy consist in talking against
the Government or selling property at half price?
He contended that the Senate had no right to 90
outside Of the qualifications mentioned in the
I fConstittion, but the Senator from Massachu-
I setts proposed to 90 outside and make the indi-
yiduai opinions Of a Senator qualification.
Mr.. Doolittlc, (Rep.,) of Wisconsin, asked if
we admitted Mr.. Starke 10 be sworn, and if he
was proven aftcrward to have been traitor,
scould we expel him without finding him guilty
gof the commission of some overt act after his
ssallaissiesa2
Mr.. Cowan said he might answer thai ques-
ton when it arises but that was not the case
now before us.
Mr. Wilmot, (Rep.,} Of Pennsylvania, said
that disloyalty might be defined unfatithfulness
to ones own country and Government, by asso-
Citations and sympathy, aside from an overt act
like treason. The simple questionis, when shall
the Senate consider the question of disloyalty?
If person is disloyal certainly he is not enti-
tied to q seat. lie thought that now was the
proper time to settle this question
Mr.. Garlic spoke at some length He con-
tended that the Senate had no power to exclude
any person sent with the proper qualifications
for State. There were different views enter
iained as to what was meant by disIoyalty.
Mr.. Dixon, (Rep., said he knew no difference
between the leader Of a rebellion and the man
who upheld it.
Mr.. Harris, {Rep.,) of New York, spoke at
length against the amendment Of Mr. Sumner
The result was, Mr.. SrARKE was admitted.