The Evansville journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ind.) 1866-1870, 1867-11-22
Brooks argued that the electoral I

whole vote of the State was 40, 200,
and yet 100 900 votes had controlled
the election, $1,000 of whom were
negroes, controlling the 1900 white
voters who v ere not disfranchised.
An oligarehy now exists and reigns in
Tennessee, and the franchise law
there was disgrace to any free form
OF Government. a dishonor to civil
ization, and a reprobation of all forms
of Republican self government.
Brooks then stated his special OBJ
lection to the swearing in of Butler:
Because. as a member of the Ten
nessee Legislature, before and during
the rebellion, he had introduced sup
porters and voted for resolutions and
measures that proved his disloyalty to
the United States Government.
Among these were resolutions to re-
ject the confirmation of any man
to Office who Endorsed the Helper
Book; condemning the appoint
ment Of Seward in Lincoln's Cab
met as an act of hostility to the
South, and for calling a Con-
vention to take Tennessee out of
the Union. Brooks quoted a prece-
dent established by the Republican
side of the House last July, in regard
to Kentucky members, and argued
that they were now irreyocably bound
by it.
Brooks then objected to the
swearing in Of Mullins, on the
ground that he had given aid
and comfort to rebels; had made
speeches in behalf of it; had lent his
aid and support to it; had attempted
to raise troops for it: and made a
speech in Bedford County, in 1861, in
which he urged the young men to en-
list in a rebel company, and defend
their homes and fresides. Brooks
also objected to the swearing in of
Arnell, on the ground that he had es-
tablished in Lawrence County, Ten
nessee, a tannery. which he devoted
to supplying shoes to rebel soldiers.
Brooks also objected to the swearing
in of Trimble, saying his information
was that if he voted at all on the
question of secession, he had voted
for taking the State of Tennessee out
of the Union. Trimble, in his seat,
assured Brooks he had not done So
Brooks accepted the denial, and
withdrew all his special objections to
swearing In Trimble
ElAridge then stated to the House
the grounds on which he objected to
| the swearing Ia of Stokes. 1t was,
that Stokes had admitted in the
House, on the 9th Of July, 1866,
baving written letter to John Dun
can, on the 10th of May, 1861, stating
sentations were going the rounds Of his
! =
which he (Stokes) wished to correct;
that he had been jealous advocate
Of the Union up to the time Lincoln
had called for 75,00Qstroops,. in viola
| ton of law, for the subjugation of
| the South; that he commended Gov.
Harris, of Tennessee, for his course,
and for arming the State and resisting
Lincoln at the point of the bayonet; /;
I and he had enrolled his name as
volunteer to resist Lincoln's Usurpa-
| tions.
Logan expressed qualification at
seeing members Oh the Democratic
side coming up to the mark. He
was willing to have the matter of
| Butler referred. But as to Stokes, he
| thought if any man could wipe out
wrong, that noble man Stokes had
wiped out the wrong Of that letter in
| fighting for the Union while some
gentlemen were publishing treason
able articles.
Dawes. of Massachusetts,, moved
as a substitute for the pending mo-
| ton, that the credentials of Butler be
referred to the Committe on Elec-
tions, and pending the discussion of
the question, he be not sworn in. He
| (Dawes) understood the gentleman
from New York to make his melton
in good faith, and he assumed that
the gentleman had made wonderful
progress since the last session, when
he put himself on the ground that no
charge of disloyalty, however fragrant
and palpable, was sufficient ground for
exclusion. As a member who
held a certificate of election. he
| congratulates the country on this
wonderful conversion, he trusted
| Brooks would continue his journey
until he saw more clearly even than
the members on the Republican side
what did constitute loyalty and dis
loyalty. The gentleman had also
taken the ground to-day that it was
proper for the House to look into the
| Constitution of a State and decide
whether it was republican or not.
He was happy for once to be able to
stand with the gentleman from New
York and vote with him. He well
coined him as a new convert, and ex-
peeted him, like all repantants, to
take the lead and do works meet for
repentance.
Kelly, of Pennsylvania, opposed all
motions looking to the exclusion of