The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1870-01-15

any other conditions than those pre-
scribed by the act of April last.
Mr., Upson, a member OF the recon-
struction committee, said he had con-
curred in reporting a bill from the COM
mittee and that he would vote for its
passage because he believed all its pro.
VISIONS were necessary, reasonable and
just.
Mr.. Hawley supported the bill and
would even exact further provisions
from Virginia if his vote could secure
them.
Mr.. Epson said he had been originally
in favor of admitting Virginia without
conditions, but he was now induced 10
believe that the interests and Liberties
of the whole people of the State were
not safe if she were admitted witnouG
conditions. He would support tnis oiil
and if conditions were struck out ne
would vote against the ADMISSION OF
Virginia.
Mr. Ward, q member the Reconstruct
ttion committee, referred to the course
of Mr.. Farnsworth, who had been de-
tailed as the organ of the committee to
nresent the bill to the House. He was
surprised to hear of the opposition made
by that gentleman to the provisions
imposing an oath on State officers. The
committee had reported the bill in good
faith, with the understanding that the
gentleman from Illinois should defend
it in the House. If that gentleman
could not consistently do so he should
have passed it over to some other gen.
tleman on the committee, for instance
Mr.. Beaman, who would have pressed 1t
to vote.
Mr.. Fa1nsworth said he had pressed
in the House the course he had init
mated in committee, and should do so,
and advocated the bill with the excep
ton of the provisions in regard to the
oath; it seemed to him that the members
of the committee who had that far ad-
dressed the House, except Nr. UTson,
had not advocated the bill as mrch as
he did.
Mr.. Ward denied all recollection OF
Mr. Farnsworth saying he should op-
pose in the House the provisions impos.
ing the oath on State officers. He had
understood him to say he would support
the bills. With that understanding he
was upheld by all his Republican
colleagues on the committee. Otherwise,
the gentlemen, Mr.. Farnsworth, would
not have had charge of the bill. He,
Ward, was opposed to the admission OF
Virginia under Walker. He was op'
posed to the admission of any
State presenting herself with
Republican figure head, but
with rebel backbone, heels or
head, like Senter, Jack Hamilton or
Walker; but they were either to take
this bill or see Virginia admitted I'M
conditionally. He therefore held that
it was the duty of every Union member
of Radical tendencies, who wished to
defeat the combination of Democrats
aud Conservatives, to support this
measure as the only measure that could
be got and as the only guarantee that
should be secured with reference to
Virginia.
the debate was continued by Messrs.
Burdett, Stevenson, Tailman and Co
burn in support of the bill, and Me,er..
Hoar and Winchester against it.
Messrs. Snumaker, Stiles and Logan
were for the unconditional restoration
of the State under Mr.. Bingham's
amendment, and Mr.. Bingham was in
support of said amendment. The latter
accorded the authorship to Mr.. Farms
worth, and said the issue before the
House involved the question whether
i'm the future the Government was to
have yassal States as well as vassal
citizens. If forced TO vote on the ques-
ton whether Virginia, the mother of
States, Statesmen and heroes, should be
represented in Congress he would say,
let the State come in and let those who
have undertaken to put letters on her
in violation of the constitution be re-.
sponsible.
Mr.. Cox opposed and Mr.. Schofeld
supported the bill.
Mr.. Farnsworth closed the debate; the
opposition to the conditions of the bill
cane not from Virginia, bat from
some members of the House who be-
lieved they would be imperative, and
who thought it too wise to en-
force the Fourteenth Amendment by
some wise, well-digestea and we'll
prepared laws that should apply
to the whole country instead of
singing out Virginia and putting them
in this cruel manner on the tail of the
kite. He referred to the notice given
by Mr.. Paine at the opening of his
speech the other day that he would
criticise his course as it deserved. He
had expected something very terrible.
He had supposed the lion would roar,
but that gentleman, either because he
was obliged to stick close to his manu-
script and forgot his threat or for some
other cause, neglected to do what be
said.
Mr.. Farrsworth found out at least that
il Was not lion at all, but only sung
the iainer, and the gentleman from
South Carolina, Mr.. Whittemore, had
presented to the House last night a
living, absurb document from indivdu-
ais calling themselves the people of Vlr-
ginia, intended to blacken the charac-
ter of Governor Walker and aid in the
defeat of the efforts of those who were
attempting to bring the State into tho
Union. 1t was gross, damning libel
upon Governor Walker.
Mr.. Whittemors remarked that he
would undertake to prove 1T by Gov
esnor Walkers law partner.
Mr. Framework replied that the mau
who was most energetic and active in
getting up that manifesto aud whose
name was Porter, had been tried
and found guilty by military
commission and had been sentenced to
six months Imprisonment and had q
ball and chain attached to his ankle for
dis'oyalty, sedition and drunkenness.
He undertook to say that but for the
Vaccinations and efforts of a few men
who through the admission Of the State
would lo,e their office, Virginia would
have been admitted on the first day of
Congress.
The debate closed aud the House pro-
ceeded, at 4:30, to vote on the bill and
amendments offered by Mr.. Whittenore,
providing the penalty for taking an
oath falsely, and it was agreed to
yeas, 122; nays, II.
The next question was on Mr.. Bing-
hams amendment as substitute. When
the roll call was completed there was
great excitement on the floor, as it was
the test question between the opposite
camps, and it was known the vote
wnnld ha vary close FINALLY the vote