The Evansville journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ind.) 1866-1870, 1867-11-22

own act, it should be governed by il.
He described the State government
of Tennessee as a disgrace to tie
country and to civilization, and said
it was a notorious fact that Union
soldiers in Tennessee had been dis,
franchised under the Browulow
government simply because ther
would not put their hands t.
their mouths, and their mouths H.
the dust, and kneel suppliant 10 TIE
negro government there, which was
lording it over white American free
men.
The amendment of Dawes, to refcr
the credentials Of Butler to the Com
mittee on Elections, was agreed J..
This was substituted for the original
motion Of Eldridge. the effect 0f it
that of Stokes. The Democrats gen
orally voted 20.
On agreeing to the resolution as
amended the negative vote Of Brooks
was received with laughter, and rc-
marks that he would have to be on
verted again.
Highly, Axtem, and johnson. Of
California, and Washburne, Of Illi-
nois, appeared, and were sworn in.
Eldridge renewed his motion that
the credentials of Stokes be referred
to the Committee on Elections.
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 trifing with the
House, (proving that his object was 70
set for some party trap, which, now
ever, sprung and caught himse,f)
than for the purpose of grave inqui-
~ into the right seat He was glad
that the House, in the case of Mu,-
lens, carried out the precedent esFab-
lished in the Kentucky case. giving
credit to the statement Of a member.
(Brooks) to which his own conduct
showed him not entitled, as he had
voted against his own proposition.
He was opposed to the reference OF
Stokes credentials, as that gentleman
has shown his loyalty by fighting un-
der the flag.
Morgan inquired if the fact that
Stokes had fought valliantly under
the flag entitled him to take the test
oath?
Schenck replied that he was not the
conscience keeper of Stokes. That
matter was left entirely with himself
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.
Dawes closed the debate by moving
the previous question, which was
seconded.
The resolution of Eldridge was re-
jected. So Stokes credentials were
not referred.
Brooks then submitted a resolution
to refer the credentials of Mullins TO
the Committee on Elections, and sent
to the Clerks desk letter from 4
Lieutenant in the 18th United States
Infantry, supporting the statement
made in respect to that case. Refer
ling TO the remarks of Logan, he said
the only difference between Logan and
himself was, that at the beginning of
the war Logan was a terrible Copper
head, and himself Union, while now
Logan was a terrible disunion man
and Jacobin, and himself still
Union man. AS to the remarks of
Schebck, that Gen. Logan was not a
very amiable person, he had not that
s1avity of manner which, as a student
of Chesterfield, he ought to have; that
he was the regular scold of the House.
Brooks then defended his course in
regard to the subject before the
House.
Shellabarger said he would not dis
cuss the proposition whether the
House might disregard the require
ments of the test oath law. The
House would be doing a most dan
gerous thing if it let down the high
and important requirements of the
test oath for the members on either
side. 1t should hold up in the ut
most good faith the standard to where
the law had fixed it, and require that
vigilance shall be brought to bear to
see that no one shall be sworn in who
could not properly take it. He would
(Schenck's) proposition, that Stokes
could take the test oath.
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 would have, the next
moment, moved to expel him for man
ifest perjury.
Shellabarger, resuming, argued that
the resolution to refer Mullins Gre
dentials should be adopted.
Butler, of Massachusetts,, opposed
the resolution, on the ground, prin-
cipally, that the charge against Mui-
Inns was made simply on an unsworn
statement contained in letter Of a
person unvouched for.
Dawes IN behalf of Mullins. on.