Cleveland daily leader. [volume] ([Cleveland, Ohio]) 1865-1873, 1866-07-31
The tennessee sena.orshIp.

We are on the whole well pleased with
the sction of the two Houses of Congress
in the case of Senator Patterson of Ten
nessee. We regarded it as of the utmost
Importance that the t~est-oath, Wilhelm now,
since Congress has refused to enact uni
versal suffrage as a condition of recon-
struction, has become the sole protection
of Southern Unionists, should not be set
aside at present, and that while it exists
it should not be made a dead letter by ex-
cusing applicants for admission to Con
gress from taking it. 1t would have been
q ruinous precedent if the test oath had
been RENTED in the very FIRST instance of
an application for admission on the Part
Of a person who could not take it. Moth
ing could lave more thoroughly paraly-
zed the influence of the oath in keeping
disloyal men out of Congress than such II
remission. Therefore, when a joint reso-
ution proposing to remit thes,oath in Mr..
Patterson's case passed the Senate and
was rejected by the House, the latter body
was clearly right, and the former clearly
wrong. But if as it turns out, Mr.. Pat
terson can take the oath, we are glad to
see him admitted to the Senate, for we be.
lieve him to be at heart loyal, though now
tainted with Johnsonism. The matter
has now been settled, as We understand it,
by Mr.. Patterson's taking the test oath
and being admitted 10 a seat. This is a
denomination deYoutly to be wished
for" and every loyal man will thank the
House for its manly stand in defence of
the test oath, the agis of Southern Union
lists.
But the Cleveland Herald finds in the
action of the House of Representative re-
newed occasion for the denunciations
which it has heaped without stint upon
the loyal majority in Congress. 1t even
thinks that this refusal of the House 10
modify the test oath 'has made the Phila-
deldhia Convention a necessity" and it
viii, we conclude, in obedience to late or
ders from Washington, lend its support
to that Convention. 1t declares this ac-
ton:
"Unjust towards Tennessee as a loyal
State, and towards Senator Patterson as a
true Union man; discourteous toward the
Senate which kad-only two votes dissent
ing-declared him entitled to his seat and
a personal insult 70 President Johnson
whose son-in-law Mr.. Patterson is"
t. rusn Ia,oo, IL A. IL i'll.
from which we quote, persistently misrep-
resents the real issue before the House. 1t
strives to make it appear that the ques-
ton was whether Mr.. Patterson should be
allowed to take the oath, when tho real
issue was whether that oath should be
made a dead letter. The matter was not
a personal, but a general and national
one. The Herald, for instance, declares
that the vote of the House was an insult
TO President johnson, because, forsooth,
Mr.. Patterson is a son-in-law of the Pres
ident. 1t is too ~jealors of its masters
honor. We are at a loss to discover how
MIR. PattersOn's relationship to President
johnson affects his claims to admission TO
the Senate. Nobody in Congress ever
raised the point and the Herald was the
first to discover that it had anything to do
with the matter in issue. Nobody object
ed to Mr.. Patterson as an individual, and
when he found himself able the oath
prescribed by law nobody objected to his
admission. 1t was only against practi-
cally annulling that oath that the House
voted, and it is that vote alone that the
Herald declares unjust to Tennessee, dis
courteous tothe Senate, and an insult (sieD |
to President johnson.
The Heralds pretence that the action
of the House was unconstitutional, is
ridiculous. 1t says:
"The Constitution provides that Each
House shall be Judge of the 8 s. g
qualifications of its own members The
House not only, by this act, exhibited lack
regard for the Senate, but il nullifed the
Of the land"
Now any man with brains above q
lackass knows that the question was not
one of qualifications" 1t was in regard
% remission of an oath, which it required
-he action of both Houses to establish.
md of course required the action of both
remit. The Senate knew this when
it put the motion 10 remit the oath into
ne form ola joint resolution, which needs
he assent of both Houses. Every one
Who knows anything about legislation
it, and we will not do so gross an
.utrage TO the intelligence of the Herald
ditor as TO suppose that he does not
now 1t. His argument, quoted above.
therefore the most deliberate as well as l
ne shsliowest misrepresentation.
We do not expect in thus exposing the |
ophistry of the Herald, to bring about c
ny amendment in its course. 1t has got
eyond reform. But we do wish our rea- Il
ers to appreciate the position of this pa |
er, claiming to belong to the Union par Il
?, and yet abusing the Union men of the :,
louise of Representatives for refusing TO h
nnul the test oath, which Mr.. Stokes so
uly declared to be the salvation of uni
n men, South and North.