The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1870-06-30
The Rejection of whittemore.

The Rejection of Whittemore.
The proceedings of Congress on the 21st
inst, upon the application of Whittemore fora
seat in the House of Representatives, are as
follows:
The case of B. F. Whittemore of South
Carolina, came up by special assignment.
Mr. Logan (Rad., Ill offered resolution re-
citing the action of the Committee on Military
Affairs and the House in reporting resolution
declaring Mr.. Whittemore, by selling military
and naval cadetshps, unworthy of seat in the
House of Representatives, reciting his election
and the presentation of his credentials, and
resolving that the House of Representatives de-
cline to allow the said B. F. Whittemore to be
sworn in as Representative in, the Forty-frst
turned to him. MIR. Logan proceeded to adj
and quoted the statute which rendered Mr..
Whittemorc liable to be tried criminally for
the offence, and On conviction to be rendered in
famous and incapable of holding any place of
trust or profit under the government of the
United States. He held that judicial action of
the House in the matter disqualified him, the
same as if he had been tried and convicted in
court of justice. If the House had power to
cxpel then by parity of reason it had the
power to exclude; otherwise, the power to ex-
pei did not amount to anything. This mans
constituents had been notified that the House
had solemnly declared that he was unworthy to
occupy a seat as member; but they had
thought proper, as if to insult the House, to
re-elect him. The House had no right to say
that men should be excluded on account of
politics or faith, but it had the right to say that
a man of Infamous character should be exclu-
ded.
Mr.. Eldridge (Dem., Wis., suggested the
danger of assuming such right, which might
be extended to exclusion of men on account Of
politics or religion.
Mr. Logan denied that the position which he
took was open to such criticism. He had di-
rcctly disclaimed the power of the House to
exclude men on account Of politics or relgiosf,
but only on account of what the law declared
to be a crime. The case of Mr.. Giddings, of
Ohio, who was censured by the House for in
Producing anti-slavery resolutions, who resign
ed, and who was reelected and admitted at the
same Congress, was not contrary precedent,
because his offence was not crime. So, too,
with Brooks and Keitt Of South Carolina.
Their offences were not penitcntiary crimes
The case of Matteson of New York, was not o
precedent either, because, although censured by
the Thirty-fourth Congress, he was re-electedto
of the Thirty-fourth Congress had expired.
The case of Wilkes in the British House of
Commons, was precedent, not against, but in
favor of his position, because, although Wilkes,
having been expelled four times by one parlia
mcnt. was admitted to his seat by another par
lament, it was not before the record had been
cxpunged and wiped out.
MIR. Farnsworth (Rad., Ill) took offence at
an alluson made against him by Mr.. Logan as
friend of Mr. Whittemore He did not want
that gentleman to indulge in such fling at his
expense. He was no more that gentleman's
friend than his colleague was. But he was In
favor of deciding the case on calm, dispas-
sionate view of it, instead of deciding it in
passionate, al captandum style.
Mr.. Logan disclaimed any intention of Often
ding his colleague.
Mr.. Eldridge suggested the case of constitu-
ency desiring to be represented by just such
man as Mr.. Whittemore, and participating i'll
the benefits of his acts; and asked whether are
tilsal to admit him would not be tedching on
the right of representation.
Mr.. Logan denied that it would be, and sup
posed the election of a colored man before he
w:ls declared entitled to citizenship, and who
would certainly not lave been admitted no
matter how often elected. The parallel in this
case was that his constituents knew Mr.. Whit
temore to be disqualified, just as it was known
t..lat colo:ed men were disqualified. MIR. VIII
tcmore had committed an infamous crime, and
was therefore disqualified in the eyes of Con
greSs and of the world, the only thing lacking
being the Judgment of q court; but he did not
think that Congress w:,s bound to appeal to q
court to Judge for it as to who was infamous.
Congress should judge for itself
Mr.. Eldridge suggested that the principle of
law was that every man was innocent until con-
victed by court of justice. He referred to
the case of Mr.. Butler Tenn as one precisely
similar to that of Mr.. Whittemore, he having
been unanimously censured for the same Of
fence, but not having resigned his seat.
Mr. Logan thought there was distinction in
the two cases, the House having refused to eX-
pei Mr.. Butler.
Mr.. Farnsworth addressed the House in op-
position to the resolution, prefacing his speech
with the remark that he knew that such po-
siton as he took was unpopular, and that the
newspapers would criticise it, and perhaps draw
a contrast between himself and his colleague.
He had voted for the censure of Mr.. White
more, and for the expulsion of Mr.. Butler, of
Tennessee, and did not know but that he would
vote for the exclusion of Mr.. Whittemore; but
he thought that the discussion thus far would
satisfy every member that the matter should be
investigated by a committee. In the case OF
Wilkes, the action in condemnation of him had
not been expunged before his admission to Par
lament On the contrary, he had been allow
ed to make the motion himself, and with his
own haud to draw the black lines across the
resolution of exclusion as being unfit to re-
main on the journal, being subversivc OF the
sentiments of the whole body of electors of the
kingdom.
Mr.. Poland (Rad., vt.) asked Mr.. Farms
worth to let him offer resolution to refer the
credentials of Mr.. Whittemore to the Judiciary
Committee, with leave to report at any time the
laws and preccdents applicable to the case, and
their judgments as to whether Mr. Whittemore
should be admitted to seat in this House.
Mr.. Schenck suggested to insert the words,