Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1867-11-28

| dentiais, as that gentleman had shown
his loyalty by lighting bravely under the
/ flag.
Mr.. Morgan Dem, Ohio inquired
whether the fact that Mr.. Stokes bad
/ fought valiantly under the Federal flag
| entitled him TO take the test oath.
! Mr.. Schenck replied that be was moi
| the conscience keeper Of Mr.. Stokes
that was a matter entirely for himself.
Mr.. Randall, Dem, PENN, con.
trasted the action OF the Republican
members in the Kentucky case with
their present action, and asked how they
could reconcile their practical inconsist-
encies.
Mr.. Dawes closed the debate by NOV
ing the previous question, remarking
that the House could pass on the ques-
ton of Mr.. Stokes as well to-day as at
any other time, the only thing in 1t being
the Duncan letter.
The previous question was seconded,
and the resolution Of Mr., Eldridge WAS
rejected so Mr.. Stokes credentials were
not referred.
Mr.. Brooks then submitted resolu-
tion to refer the credentials of Mr.. Null
Inns to the Committee on Elections, and
sent to the Clerks desk and had read q
United States infantry, supporting the
statement made in respect 10 that case.
Referring TO a remark of Mr.. Logan, he
said that the only difference between
Mr.. Logan and himself was that at the
beginning of the war Mr.. Logan was
terrible COpperhead and himself Union
man, while now Mr.. Logan was terri
BILE disuniOn man and Jacobite, and HIM
self still a Union man. As TO the re-
marks of Mr.. Schenck, that gentleman
was not very amiable person. he had
not that suavity of manner which, as
student OF Chesterfield, he ought to
have; he was the regular scold Of the
House. Mr.. Brooks then defended his
own course and consistency in regard to
the subject before the House.
Mr.. Shellabarger rep, Ohio said he
would not discuss the proposition whether
the House might disregard the require
ments of the Test Oath law. The House
would be doing a most dangerous thing
if 1t let down the high and important
requirements of the test oath for men,
bers on either side. 1t should hold up in
the utmost good faith the standard 70
where the law had fixed ii, and require
that vigilance shall be brought to tear
to see that no one shall be sworn in who
could not properly take it. He would
not consent to his colleagues Mr..
Sehensk's) proposition that Mr.. Stokes
Should judge for himself whether he
could take the test oath.
Mr. Schenek explained, and justified
his remark, and having referred to the
case Of Senator Patterson, he said that
he would have permitted him to take
the oath, but would have the next mo-
ment moved to eXpel him for manifest
perjury.
Mr.. Shellabarger, resuming, argued
that the resolution to refer Mr.. Mullins
credentials should be adopted.
Mr.. Butler (Rep., Mass opposed the
resolution, on the ground principally
that the charge against Mr.. Mullins was
made simply on an unswOrn statement
contained in the letter of q person un-
vOuched for. Referring to Mr.. Brooks,
he remarked that it would hardly be be-
lieved that leader OF the Know Moth
ing party should now be found bOasting
by how many votes he could be returned
to Congress If be were expelled for mis-
conduct. He believed in repentance,
and was very glad that a gentleman,
heretofore the leader of the " Dark-Lan-
tern-Auti- Catholic Church burning and
Orphan n-Asylum-paFty should change,
and become the leader of cohorts of
Irishmen, if ITishmen could be found so
deluded as to follow him.
Mr.. Dawes, in behalf of Mr.. Mullins,
entered the hall, and complete denial
by that gentleman of all the matters
alleged in,the letters was submitted to the
House.
The Eouse voted on the resolution, and
it was rejected unanimously.
The Tennessee members then, except
Mr.. Butler, were called in front of the
Speakers chair, and had the test oath
solemnly administered TO them.