The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1866-05-23

| 1t would seem that they could I've Justly de.
MED, Only on the ground thai, in subscribing 10
the oaths, the claimants would commit a fraud
| and perjury. Not only is there a legal pre-
sumption to the contrary, but every intelligent
| man in the community admits the proved
| loyalty, fdelity, ard constancy Of all the mem.
0eis VINO have come from Tennessee and from
Arkansas. The apology tor the denial is that.
although the members now chosen are loyal vet
mltted, 'a ~
Is II necessary to say that the same subterfugp
nay be equally resorted to in the case of every
other member OF Congress? The suspicion Is
illogical, and unwarranted by the Constitution.
And even If It were both constitutional and
logical, Congress has still the reserved and ab.
solute power to expel the member whenever he
shall become unialthtul or ialter in his allie
glance.
The advota ates of dissolution, pressed by these
facts, resort 10 the argument that although it Is
true that Representatives who have come from
Tennessee and Arkansas are loyal and can meet
conscientiously and legally every test which
Congress has prescribed or can prescribe; and
although they may be expected to remain loyal
themselves, yet that among those who have
come from other Nnrepresented States there arc
persons who cannot take the test oaths and are
therefore properly held to be disloyal
The reply Is obvious. Let all disloyal claim.
ants from other States be rejected but in any
case admit the loyal representatives of Tennes-
see and Arkansas. Still Congress excludes the
loyal, grouping them in one indiscriminate
mass with the disloyal.
This course OF the opposition has failed TO be
satisfactory, and, therefore, new arguments must
be found. One Of these is that although the
present Representatives are loyal the terms for
which they were elected will some day expire
and they may be followed by disloyal sue
CessoIs.
The same argument would upset every seat
in both houses of Congress, because although
the constitutional presumption IN favor of
loyalty in the several STATES ALWAYS remains
good, yet none can absolutely guarantee that
any one state or district in the United States
ray not at some future time send disloyaI
Representative.
We all clearly that the question is not of
what is past nor yet which is future Judged by
whole Congress would accept some districts in
every State, and many of the States have at
times heretofore suffered themselves to be repre-.
sented by dlsloyal men, and any one or ali of
them may consent to be represented by dsloyal
men hereafter. The only sure wav 10 guard
against this imaginary danger would be to dis
pense with Congr, SIS altogether.
The advocates OF disunion seem to arrive at
the conclusion thai our entire system of repub-
lican government is an absurd failure. What.
then, is my conclusion? 1t is one, at least
that will be admitted to harmonize with my past
life
am hopeful of the President, hopeful of the
Congf ess hopef ful OF the National Union party.
hopeful OF the Democratic party, hopeful of the
represented and unTepresented States above
9ll, hopeful OF the continued favor of Almighty
God. When l shall return here from the field
ol public service, and shall come to mineIe once
more in your peaceful pursuits, | desire and
hope then to be able to look with renewed
affection and pride upon our beloved county,
l nope that then, while l remember how power
fully within our own times she has been beset
and besieged, shall, nevertheless be able to
say, "All her enemies at home. as well as
ABROAD, compass her walls in solemn pomp.
Your eyes quite round her cast; count all her
towers, and see If there you find one stone dis.
placed"