Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1867-03-29
From Washington.

bered only to be denounced.
| From Washington.
| TEAD. STEVENS AS AN EAvEs-DROPPER.
Mr. Thaddeus Stevens, who has got brave
ly over his indisposition of last Tuesday,
turned up Saturday i'll 4 new character
that of eaves-dropper. He accused Mr..
Blaine of having become an auti-impeach-
ment member since the election OF Mr..
Wade as President Of the Senate, and de-
tailed conversation i'll which the Maine
member expressed himself as unwilling to
trust the " shilly-shallying of Mr.. Wade.
Mr.. Blaine denied ever having used such
language in conversation with Mr.. Stevens.
Mr.. Stevens conceded the fact, but main
tanned that the remark had nevertheless
| been made.
After further Questioning, the g leader Of
the House" was compelled to acknowledge
that he overheard the remark. Mr..
Blaine thought it was hardly in accordance
with the amenities of debate for q gentle
man to retail what ho has ''overheard in
d private conversation. He denied that he
had used the term attributed to him by
Mr.. Stevens in speaking of Mr.. Wade, and
repeated what he had said in the converse
ton * overheard by Mr.. Stevens, which
was to the effect that i'll the event CT the
impeachment of the President he consider
sd Mr.. Wade an unsafe man as compared
with Mr.. Fessenden, who bad also been q
candidate for President Of the Senate
/ This assertion made an issue of veracity,
for Mr.. Stevens thon said that III the con-
versation he s. overheard. Mr.. Fessenden's
name was not mentioned. While these
spicy personalities were going on, the mem
bers on both sides had left their seats, and
gathered in the vicinity Of the gladiators,
and appeared to be highly entertained by
the amusement thus afforded.
IMPEACHMENT TALK IN THE loUsE.
In the House of Representatives Satur-
day:
Mr. Blaine, OF Maine, offered resolution,
that when the House adjourn on next Tues
day, it adjourn to meet on Monday, Nov.
18th.
The resolution gave rise to q debate
which took wide range.
Mr.. Garfield asserted that it was his be-
lief that the President was very DESTROYS of
getting rid of Congress.
Mr.. Eldridge denied this.
Mr.. Butler, Of Mass, spoke five minutes
in favor of impeachment He said the loyal
people of the country desired it.
Mr.. Blaine, of Maine, said this declara-
ton had gone uncontradicted in the House
long enough. He maintained that out of
the seventeen or eighteen hundred news
papers which represented the loyal people
of the country, and which are the best in
dices of public opinion, the gentleman can
not find twenty-five that regard impeach-
ment rs serious, and then the gentleman
talks about our remaining hero and having
the question settled. The question in the
public mind is settled.
Mr.. Butler-Thc gentleman will further
allow me to say that had the honor toplace
before the Legislature OF his own State,
Maine, the question whether Andrew John
son ought to be impeached, and in my
Judgment it would have voted for impeach-
ment at once, but that ! advised the ques-
: ton to be left to Congress.
Mr. Blaine-The gentleman may be bet.
ter posted about the affair than l am, but
my advices from there are that the Legisla-
ture regarded the matter as ineXpedient.
! Mr.. Butler-Let me further say that ]
, have presented petitions for impeachment
from many parts of the country, and when
the gentleman tells me that the newspapers
of the country do not want impeachment
let me ask him how many of these newspa'
per people have daughters, sons, nephews,
uncles, aunts and cousins in the federal Of
fees of the government
Mr.. Blaine-f the gentleman means to
: impugn the newspapers of the country, /
take up the gauntlet, and say that better
class of men docs not exist in the United
States than those who represent the press.
= Mr.. Stevens, Of Pennsylvania, expressed
the desire that the question be postponed
till Monday or Tuesday next. There were
three or four small appropriation bills and
other matters to be disposed Of. AS to the
: question OF impeachment he had nothing
to say, having heretofore expressed his
views on that question.
fDT4h dol 70
moved to lay the resolution on the table
negatiyed-yeas So, nays rs.
/ The previous question was seconded, and
! without disposing OF the subject the House,
at quarter before five, adjourned.
RECoNsTRUCEI0N-1Sr CORRESPOND.
ENCE.
WASHINGTON, March 20.--John II. Wash
korn, of Texas, has addressed the following
! letter to Senator Wilson
Washington, March II, 1S67.-Sr On my re.
: turn homo to Texas many questions will be asked
as TO the extent Of the dsfranchisenent set forth
ia the reconstruction law passed March End, and
afterwards amended by the supplement act. Docs
the law as it now reads disfranchise the rank and
file or the soldiers and citizens in the Southern
} States who had never taken an oath to support
the constitution Of tho United States or is it only
applicable to that class OF persons who had pre-
, viously taken that oath and afterwards engaged
IN the rebellion? Your Interpretation OF the law
as understood here, will do much in quieting spec.
ulations on the subject. and give many the oppor-
tunity Of aiding. by their suffrage, 70 quiet the
country.
have The honor to be, sir very respectfully
your obedient servant,
JOHN II. WAsHKoRN, of Texas
To which Senator Wilson replies as fol
lows
, j. II. Wt4SIskora, ESq.-My Dear Sir In reply
to your question, docs the law as it now exists
dsfranchise the rank and file Of the soldiers who
had never taken an oath to support the constitu-
ton of the United States, have to say that il
does not disfranchise them.
The constitutional amendment disqualifes from
holding Office certain persons who have taken an
oath to support the constitution OF the United
States and then engaged in the rebellion, or gave
aid or comfort to it. This class of persons are
DISTINGUISHED, and all other persons arc entitled
to vote.
These persons are mentioned in the constitu.
tional amendment so that all persons will know
who are disqualified and disfranchised.
Yours, tgply, HENRY WILSON.