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

Tho Senator selected by the Governor OF Or
egon, Mr.. STARtE 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
olution reported by the Committee, so as to make
| it read that Mr. Starke be not entitled to take
the oath without an investigation into his loyalty.
| lie spoke at some length in favor of the a.
mendment contcnding that the Senate, i'll self
defence, ought not to admit suspicion of dis
loyalty, and it was not Justice to the people of
Oregon to admit disloyal representation, which
was, in fact, no representation of their will. lie
claimed, that the affdavits in the case were wor-
thy of investigation, and the Senate was bound
to meet disloyalty on the threshold.
Mr.. Cowan, Rcp.,) of Pennsylvania, said that
if members were to be excluded by mere caprice,
we could not tell on whom the blow would next
fall. The question is, what is this thing disloy-
atty? He would like the Senator from Massa-
chusetts to define it.
Mr.. Sumner read from Il letter 10 the Secre-
tary of State, signed by thirteen citizens of Or
egon, 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-
sider them they solemnly stultify themselves
That was his answer.
Mr.. Howard, Rep.,) of Michigan, called at
tcntion to other evidence, where Mr.. Starllc had
said that if there was war with the South he
would sell his property for fifty censon the dol
lar and 90 and fight for the South.
Mr. Cowan said he had asked definition and
got an example He was just as wise as he was
before. Did disloyalty consist in talking against
the Government or selling property at half price?
lie contended that the Senate had no right to go
outside of the qualifications mentioned in the
Constitution, but the Senator from Massachu-
setts proposed to go outside, and make the indi-
vidual opinions of Senator qualification.
Mr.. Doolittle, (Rep.,) of Wisconsin, asked if
we admitted Mr.. Starke to be sworn and if he
was proven afterward to have been traitor,
could we expcl him without finding him guilty
of the commission of some overt act after his
admission?
Mr.. Cowan said he might answer that ques-
ton when it arises; but that was not the case
now before us.
Mr., Wilnot, Qaep.) of Pennsylvania, said
that disloyalty might be defined as unfaithfulness
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 q person is dsloyal, certainly he is not enti-
tied to Il seat. He 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
famed as to what was meant by disloyalty
Mr.. Dixon, Qaep., said he knew no difference
between the leader of rebellion and the man
who upheld it.
Mr.. Harris, Rcp.,) of New York, spoke at
length against the amendment of Mr. Sumner.
The result was, Mr. STARKE was admitted.