The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1867-11-22

MT. dawes, Oh 01ftSS., iiloNO0 -
stitute for the pending motion, tnat
the credentials Of Butler be referred 10
the Committee on Elections and penu-
ing the discussion he be not sworn In.
He (Dawes) understood the gentleman
from New York to make his motion IN
GOOD faith and he assumed that the
Gentleman had made wonderful pro-
Sress since last session when he put
Himself on the ground that no charge
of disloyalty, however fragrant and
palpable, was sufficient ground for the
exclusion of member who held GER
tifcate of election.
He congratulated the country on
this wonderful conversion. He trnsted
that Brooks wonld continue the journey
until he saw more clearly, from the
members on the Republican side; what
did constitute loyalty and disioyalty;;
Tho gentleman had also taken grounu
to-day that il was proper tor the house
to look into the Constipation OF a
State and decide whether; 1T is repubh-
can or not. He was happy for once to
oe able to stand with: THE gentleman
from New York and vofe with him. He
welcomed him as ANEW convert, and
expected him, like all repentants, to
take the lead and DO works meet for re-
Mr.. Kelly, of Pennsylvania, opposed
all motions looking to the exclusion of
any of the Tennessee members, and
eulogized the character and services OF
Mr.. Stokes. He wished the members of
the South to know that it was the party
on the floor which did not acknowledge
any place or time for repentance; which
could not relieve them of disfranchise-
ment--not for rebellion. but for the
holding of opinions in 1861, which they
| held to-day, on the subjects of States
rights, andthe degradation OF the color
ed people.
After some further remarks by Messrs.
Dawes and Chanler, of New York, Mr..
Marshall, of Illinois, expressed his con-
viction that the qualifications pre-
scribed in the Constitution were only a
test that could rightfully apply to
members; but since the House has es-
tablished a different law for its own
acts, it should be governed by 1t. de
described the State government OF Ten
nessee as disgrace to the country and
to civilization, and said it was a motor
ious fact that Union soldiers in Ten-
nessee had been DISTINGUISHED under the
Browlow government, simply because
they would not put their hands 90 their
months, and their mouths in the dust,
and kneel suppliants to the negro gov
eminent there, which was lording it
over the white American freemen.
The amendment of Mr.. Dawes to re-
| fer the credentials of Mr.. Batter to the
committee on Elections, was agreed to.
This was q substitute for the original
motion of Mr.. Eldrige, the effect of it
being to refer Mr.. Bntler's case, not that
of Mr.. Stokes.
The Democrats generally voted "no"
an agreeing to the resolution.
The negative vote of Mr.. Brooks was
received with laughter and remarks
that he would have to be converted
again.
Messrs. Highly, Axtell and johnson,
of California, and Washburne, of Illi-
nois, appeared and were sworn in.
Mr.. Eldridge then renewed his motion
that the credentials of Mr.. Stokes be
referred to the committee on Elections.
! Mr.. Schenck said he wanted no more
of this sort of thing. The member from
New York had just shown by his vote
that he had been trifiing with the
House, proving his object to be to set
somo party trap, which, however, had
sprung and caught himself, rather than
tor the purpose of grave inquiry into
| the right to q seat. He was glad that
the House, in the case of Mr.. Mullins,
had carried out the precedent estab-
| lished in the Kentucky case, giving
credit to the statement of u member
(Brooks) TO which his own conduct
showed bim not entitled. He was OPP
posed to the reference of Mr.. Stokes
credentials, as that gentleman had
shown his loyalty by fighting under
the flag.
Mr.. Morgan enqured if the fact that
Mr.. Stokes had fought valiantly under
the flag entitled him to take the test
oath.
Mr. Schenck replied that he was not
conscience keeper for Mr.. Stokes; that
was matter entirely for himself.
Mr.. Randall contrasted the action of
the Republican members in the Ken
lucky case with their present action
and asked how they could reconcile
their practical Inconsistencies.
Mr.. Dawes closed the debate by NOV
ing the previous question, which was
seconded, and the resolution of Mr.. IL
bridge was rejected, so Mr.. Stokes Gre
dentiais were not referred.
Mr.. Brooks then submitted a resolu-
ton to refer the credentials of Mullins
to the Committee on Elections and sent
to the Clerk'sklesk a letter from Lieu
tenant in the 10Th United States Infan-
try, supporting the statement made
in respect to that case. Refer
ring to the remark Of Mr.. Logan, he
said the only difference between Logan
] and himself was that ut the beginning
of the war Logan was terrible Cop
perhead, and himself Union; while now,
Logan was terrible disunion man and
Jacobin, and himself still Union man.
As to the remarks of Mr.. Schenck,
that gentleman was not very amiable
person. He had not that suavity of
manner which, as n student of Chester
field, he ought to have. Mr. Brooks de-
Tended his course in regard to the sub
ject before the House.
Mr.. Shellsbarger said he would not
ulsCuSS lue prOFoSlIIoH aS To WueuneT
the House might disregard the require
ments of the test oath law. The House
would be doing most dangerous thing
| if it let down the high and important
requirements of the test oath for men,
beers on either side. 1t should hold it
up in the utmost good faith to the
staedard where the law had fixed it,
and require that vigilance shall be ex-
ercised to see that no one is sworn who
could not properly takeit
He would not consent to his col
leagues (Schenck's) proposition that
Stokes should judge for himself whether
he could take the test oath.
Mr.. Schenck explained and justified
his remark, and having referred to the
case of Senator Patterson, he said he
would have permitted him to take the
oath, but he would have the next mo-
ment moved to expel him for manifest
perjury.
Mr.. Shellabarger, resuming, argued
that the resolution to refer Mullins
credentials should be adopted.
Mr.. Butler, of Massachusetts,, opposed
the resolution on the ground principally
that the charge against Mr.. Mullins