The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1862-01-10

Mr.. Bright said that there was no prece.
dent for such motion. He never knew of
case where senator had been refused the
oath. He thought the Senator had better
be sworn and then let the Senate take re-
c0gnizance of the latter. Never had baser
falsehoods been offered than those in regard
to himself which had been sent to the Senr
ate here. He had in his pocket copy OF
the New York Herald, where it was stated
that be bright was Brigadier General in
the rebel army.
Mr.. Fessenden said it was true there was
not precedent, but the state of the coun-
try was without precedent and we had
now to make precedents. These papers in
reference to Mr.. Stark were we'll attested
by his neighbors and townsmen.
MIR. Bayard thought the case had better
go over until tomorrow that Senators might
have time to look into it.
Mr.. Trumbull said the case was not with
out precedent, and referred to the case of
Mr.. Lanmon of Connecticut, where creden.
tials were referred, and also to the case of
MIR. Griswold of Ohio, where credentials
were also referred.
Mr.. Sumner said the, case was unprece.
dented. The Senate is now examining the
loyalty of certain members.
Mr.. Bayard said there were men in the
Senate in 1872, who were opposed to the
war with Great Britain and to the action of
the Government.
Mr.. Bright said he supposed that he was
referred to by the Senator from Massa.
chusetts.
Mr.. Sumner-At any rate he was in q
category.
Mr.. Bright was glad the Senate was ex.
aiming, and 80 far as he was concerned he
was only sorry that they wereso slow. He
was anxious for result.
Mr.. Lane of Ind, thought that sufficient
tor the day was the evil thereof, when other
cases come up the Senate will be ready to
vote; there could be no difference of opin-
ion in regard to the present war by any
patriot.
The credentials of Mr.. Stark and the pa.
pers handed in by Mr.. Fessenden, were
then laid on the table for the present.
HoUsE.-Mr. Conkling, rising to ques.
ton of privilege, called attention to the
fact that on the second day of the session, a
resolution was adopted with reference to
the battle at Balls Bluff. The resolution
proposed no investigation into any future
transactions whatever. 1t simply requested
the Secretary of war to inform the House
whether any steps have been taken to ass
certain who was responsible for the disaster.
The resolution was handed to the Adjutant
General who submitted it to the Com
mander>in. Chief He (Conkling) was un.
willing to believe that the Commander-in-
Chief had read the resolution, because he
could not impute to him the design to trife
with the House and return an evasive ans
wer. If he did read it he certainly misun-
derstood its purpose. '
He seemed to have received The impress
ion that future inquiry was to be institu'
ted, and that offs very general character and
he accordingly expressed an opinion to the
Adjutant General, which was reported to
the Secretary of War, and by the latter
transmitted to the House. The answer to
the resolution did not inform the House
that steps had been made to show who was
to blame for the Balls Bluff disaster. The
response was evasive Now this was a
disregard of the privileges of the House
which ought to receive and requires prompt
notice. Unless we consent to trampling
on our rights, we should watch with jeal-
GUS eye the right OF wholesome inquiry.
The inquiry related to great national Ca
lamity and to the most atrOcious military
murder ever committed in our history, and
the most Illuminating triumph of the re-
bellion. A blunder so gross that every man
can see it and no one has ever dared to
deny or defend it.
Besides the defeat and the large loss of
arms, munitions of war, there was sacr.
fee of $50 men. al.1F ~
The resolution to which be (Conkling)
referred was proposed out of respect to the
memory of those men, and 10 Difference to
the public propriety and self respect to the
nation. 81.
1t was to enquire whether the military
authorities have taken any steps whatever
to ascertain who is responsible for the
slaughter of the sons of New York, Massa-
chusetts and Pennsylvania. 49,
Gen. Stone who was at the time in conn
mand is q member of the regular army.
Col. Baker was a volunteer. The respec.
tive friends of these gentlemen have raise d
a question as to the merits of the case in
volving the efficiency of regulars and
volunteers. he (Oonklipg) had no tolera.
ton Tor such Q controversy. An enquiry
was absolutely necessary The man that
is to blame should fall upon his knees and
ask pardon. If Col. Baker was responsible,
most lamentably has be suffered. If Gen.
Stone is responsible, greater weight of
guilt never rested upon any other man
than upon him. VI IA tsa.HaE ~. ..a lAE