Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1864-01-28

this power before attempt 10 exercise Did the act
OF July q 1862 embrace 8enetofsi Hs ooDteuded not
aud quoted various authorities support Of the argument
that Senators not officers within the meaning of the
Constitution aud the law The Senate only had power
oxpel by two-thrds vote and not by impeachment No
two Senators agreed this floor in regard to any ques
ton and every Senator had right TO his individual opn
ions, subject only 30 tho law, civil and criminal
He pointed out tho fact that the Constitution provided
that no Senator shall be appointed TO civil Office during
his term and said that the Interpretation put the
statute by Senators would be absurd because then Sena
tors would hold civil Offices while they were on the hoor
Senators and Representatives only responsible TO the
legislatures and constituents Of their respective States
The Senate was body Of men, so was the House and
they derived all powers not UNDER but by the Constitution
and the members held their subject to other part
the Government except they made SO by the Con-
stituti0n The President the other House, had no
right to question acts Of the Senate because would be
c0ercive power.
He referred to the view which had been presented by
the Senator from Massachusetts Mr. SuMNER) relative
to the seeded States which he considered unconstitutional
and mschievOus The States not to be reduced to
territorial governments to back into the Union at
such times aud in such Congress might elect
He cOntrOvered also the view Of Mr.. COLLAMER, with
reference to the c0nscatOn act Of July H. 1862 declar
ing there nothing in that act to support the law of
July 1862, under which this rule proposed to be APP
piled to Senator'S and proceeded at length to explain the
decision of Chief Justice Marshall 10 the Of McCu
Tough vs. The State of Maryland, quoted by Mr. ANTHONY
yesterday He contended that that decision did not apply
here The question then was was there power 10 esaD
1sh United States bank.
II man were loyal now and takes the OATH would you
him out and ndc him for perjury because he had at
some time the past committed the offence OF treason
He would say not Who knows but what of the So
majors who had only taken the oath prescribed in the Con-
stituton could not be relied upon and had committed at
time offences against the United States? Ihe war
now upon waged under the Constitution for the sup
preston Of the spirit of rebellion that would overthrow It,
1t to be limited to the specific objects Tor which IT
was intended. Did want the States back Did we,
want the terminated, and this slaughter to cease
Did we want sound aterna relations to be restored and
former prosperity revived and our nation to be placed
IF 81 aarfh1 Vhp priA
not say yes Can get the Seeded States back by
measures to keepthem out? Was it the purpose OF the
act of July to say to the people Of the South men, wo
men, and children you out of the Union now and for
ever and that they should be slaughtered on their own
hearthstones unless they inf Thswas not the view
taken 10 1862, when the act was passed
The people of the South, when the military power OF
the rebellion snbdued, would again come into the
fold of the Union under the provision Of the Presdents
amnesty proclamation The social connections of those
people had much to do with their present condition
What spectacle it would be to six millions Of PEG
pie thrust out of the pale of tbs Government of the
United States! But it would be infinitely worse to bold
proud and sensitive people in such slavery He was
opposed to placing the negro on political equality with
the white greater evil to the slave than the master
What would not suffer death thousand times than
to be brought to political degradaton Such degradation
was not the crushing Of the rebellion and
the restoration of the Union.
The day fast approaching (if the power of the
Government exerted it ought to beg when the mill
tary power Of the rebellion would be crushed and the
people of the South would share in heart well in
deed the blessings Of restored Union In the language
of Webster " This Government of ours not con
soEdated, but united one.
"sNot, chaos-like, together crushed and bruised,
But like the world, harmouiously confused
Where order in variety
And where, though all things differ, all agree"
The question was taken on the proposition Of Mr..
SALISBURY to refer the proposed rule to the Com
mtee the Judiciary with Instructions to inquire whe
Their Senators and Representatives included within
the provisions of the entitled to prescribe
oath Of Office and for other purposes approved July
1862 and whether the said act in accordance or in con
hct with the Constitution Of the United States.
This motion rejected by the following vote:
YEAs-Messrs ,Backalew Garlic, Cowan, Davis Hard
ing, Henderson, Hendricks johnson, Powell Salisbury
Wiley, and Wright-la
ness Dixon Fesssnden, Foot Foster. Crimes, Hale, Har
LAM Harris Hicks, Howard Lane OF Indiana Lane Of Ksn
sas Morgan sherman sprague sumner Ten EyoS, irum-
bull Van Wrinkle, Wade, and Wiison-2h.
The question then recurring the adoption of the pro-
posed new rule
Mr. HOWARD, of Michigan. thought this simple
proposition that every Senator should hereafter take this
oath be excluded from this body 1t rather late
the day to say that we're dong gnevous wrong
against persons whose hands FED with tho blood of
Innocent loyal people when we simply ask them or their
such an oath q this
Admitting that Senator not civil officer, does it
follow that he ia not embraced in the statute They OBJ
tain their Offices by election appointment IL not Sc
nator elected Ia not the President elected? Upon what
principle do the egrned Senators from Delaware and Ma
well other officers elected by the peope Without
fidelity required by the oath under this statute the Const
tuition would become dead letter; it's vital blood would
be gone With this 1t would endure forever The omis-
sion of the particular form Of the oath in the Constitution
plainly gives the Senate power to establish The Sc
nate was be mbecile than court of Justice,
and we had right 90 back and inquire into the ante
cedents of peron demanding admission in this body III
in the future Of injustice should under the rule
the Senate could repeal the law In such he should
cheeraly vote for it, Sufficient unto the day the
evil thereof The people of the North not such
fools fight such this, and sanr6ce huo
dred and fifty two hundred thousand lives, aud then
around say ~ traitors back and sit in the
councils Of the nation lie would consent to such
weakness and folly.
Mr. FOOTE, Of Vermont would discuss alone the ques-
ton Of tie expedency Of the proposed rule Where
the propety of incorporating to the rules Of the Senate
obligation which the law OF July 1862 itself already
imposes The law in itself sufficient rule. rule
of the Senate could make the statute any stronger than
There precedent for this rule. 1t implied
that the law detective and there no necessity
for IT,
Mr.. SALISBURY, being entitled to the floor, made a
long speech against the resolution He sad that the i'm
Of the decision Of the Senate did not depend upon
any immediate results to follow that decision, but upon
those which might hereafter III it condeded
that the act Of July 1862 applied to Senators and Rep
resentatves he could conceive but object which the
friends Of that had in view in ts passagehe
in Congress II such the object the friends of that
measure mgst be regarded the rankest disunonss
case TO exclude from membership In this body aud the
evervbolv WI had aided In manner exist