Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1864-01-28
CONGREssL NAL.
THE NEW OATH FOR SENATORS.

to establish new rule for the body requiring Senators
take the oath prescribed for civil officers OF the Govern
msot by the act OF July 1862 We have room to insert
only an outline of Of the speeches delivered on the
| subject
Mr. BAYARD proceeded to address the Senate at length
in oppostion to the proposed rule lie sad tnat a.
he was the only Senator who had not taken the oath
erred TO- he presumed that the rule was intended 70 ope
rate personally upon him, notwithstanding no naa per
formed the functions Of Senator since tho adoption toe law
on the subject and that other Senators had been allowed
to do 40 without having the additional oath administered
to them He gave history Of the legislation on the sub
ect at the last session when hasIy y was adsea
it was to be- discretionary with Senators to take tho oath
or not
Mr. BaYARD argued that the Senate the only body
judge Of the qualification OF its own members under tns
Constitution add no judicial act Of either House 10 valid
to expe member who has the qualifications prescribed
by the Constitution The act OF July . 1907, was re-
pugnant TO several provisions Of the Consutuuon pre-
serb new oath to legislator previous TO entering
upon his duties The Federal Government was one OF
specially delegated and enumerated powers and the
Senate could not exercise powers not Dy cate
To il under the Consultation The Constitution prescribed
the form Of the oath which Representatives should take
He would make cap ous opposition to the oath 10 any
form that Congress might PRESCRIBE though ne
the simple form Of the Constitution he tnougnt tne
second oath prescribed nothing necessary for the due
Of Senators not contained In the old oath
1t verbiage great part as the oath 70 support
the Constitution involved s that was required IN the pro-
posed OATH for no one could support the Constitution
without bearing true allegiance to the United States
az required BY the OATH As to the clause referring 10
mental reservations knew of theory OF morals whicn
would admit It. and an action for perjury would hold
| against Senator other person pleading such his
oath was variation from the oath required by the laws OF
1890, it Retrospective IN It's cnaracsel Inc con-
stitutional oath appealed to the conscience alone
Mr. BAYARD contended that the precedent set IN the
establishment Of this rule would be pregnant Of evil II
there was power in Congress to require an
oath in regard to treason snen mgn. 70 srs ms
ority might exclude any member, whereas by the Con-
stituton it required twothird vote to expeia member
Thus the power here proposed would pc unnmsed j. y
might require Representative to support the act OF the
Executive or Congress- though he believed ~ 10 Dc da
metricay opposed to the letter and spirit Of the Const
tutoo He objected to this rule not 30 macn io inc Cd
ec il seeks to effect but for the exercise OF the unmted
power it confers One precedent would DO IOOWeu Dy
another. until anarchy ensued and Tree Government
would be followed by an unlimited desponsm 10 snow
that there parallel to the proposed 70 Dc
found Mr. BAYARD quoted from various Enghsn ana Anne
rican authorities He hoped the guarantees OF the Con-
stuton would not be idly frittered away and the only
barriers against the encroachments Of despouc power
abandoned This law would inAict q punishment upon
him as consequence of his silence 1t would seek to
ascertain facts in manner unknown 10 the common
law and the Constitution by forced confession oi tne
offender and would hold his silence as confession OF
guilt This rule contrary to the spirit ana letter OF
the Constitution and held guilty for refusing 70 an
swer indictment for capital crime framed IN manner
not authorized by that instrument
bate hereofore that member Of Congress was civil
officer He quoted several acts OF Congress IN support OF
his position on this Important p0lnts NJ
In conclusion he said that his understanding OIL the
term LOYALTY was seadast adherence to the organic laws
defined in the Constitution and an ardent support OF the
great guarantees for the maintenance OF the principles
civil and religious liberty which it was the object OF its
framers to promote and peTpetuae the term loyalty
any thing else than adherence to the spirit and let
of the Constitution, he would wish to be considered
disloya and when that decided he would meet
the issue became his dignity American Senator
Mr.. COLLAMER addressed the Senate at length in
support of the proposed rule He said that in order to
understand it's true intent and meaning was necessary
10 take in consideration eontemporaneous egsiaon the
mischief produced under the old law, and the remedies
produced by the law of July, 1862 Up to 1861 men
lad claimed seats here who plotting during their
term to subsert and overthrow the Government OF the
United Staeswho openly declared their purposes To this
end They deiisptly and Indignantly domlneared over
majority Of the Senate and finally undertook to carry into
Effect the conspiracy they here concocted The question
before the body how thu Senate In the adoption OF
the new rule rid itself Of such aad keep them
out Was the legislation Of this Government to be put in
the hands Of who boldly plot its destruction Ihen
odeed there was end Of the Government. the Con-
stituton was so framed be subject to this infmity
WINS total failure. The Senator from Delaware lMr
BAYARp) had admitted that Congress had the power to
define the qualifications Of its members He did not see
why the Senate had not the power that State legislatures
had repeatedly exercised in this respect Wond the
Senator object under the old law to take oath that his
age sufficient to qualify him for seat here Would
il not be as proper for the Senate ask the Senator il he
tho other requisite we'll as that
The law requiring the oath impartial one and made
distinctions and any breach OF Z would De perjury,
whereas without the sanction Of the law Of 1862 it would
not be- The new law did not propose any new disquah-
cation and the Senator'S objections seemed to apply solely
to the manner Of its application
Mr. CoLLAMER proceeded at some length to argue that
the rule did not as the Senator from Delaware had
It, violate the amendment to the Constitution This did
not deprive Of his life, liberty, or property He
did not see that the requirement altered the qualifications
prescribed in the Constitution.
Mr. ANTHONY said an got passed By Congress and ap-
proved by the Executive enough law for him until
adverse decision was made by the proper tribunal This
rule was based an law Of 1862 and he mentioned 10 sup
port of the authority of the Senate TO establish such rule
the opinion Of Chief Justice Marshall in the of Nc
Culloch vs. The State of Maryla The Chief Justice
said the oath which might be exactedtbat OF fidelity
TO the Consttutiols presented and other be
quired yet he would be charged with insanity who should
contend that the Legislature might not snperadd to the
oath directed the Constitution such other oath OF ONCE as
its wisdom mig suggest" Mr. ANTHONY thought this
conclusive
Mr. HENDRICKS said that he had subscribed this oath
when he bis seat here not because be thought
pey required but in order not to be misunderstood and
TO silence the csmor that hight arise be refused There
when proposed to make il the general rule, affecting all
future applicants, he shoId oppose it. He thought when
person duly qualified by his State 90 Sena.
he should be entitled to his seat this oor and that
the State bad the right to demand this He conte led that
this oath put obtctons ia the way Of any feasible policy
Of reconstruction He was heartily determined that none
Of the leaders Of the rebellion should again take seats hcre
The end Of the rebellion end TO the leaders OF the
rebellion hey would In the event Of reconstruction, be
socous for their personal saiey to urge claims for
hare He argued that there were people 10 the
"A had If