The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1880-06-17
Hill, Butler and Hampton.


ford case in the United States Senate
Senator Mcdonald concluded his argu.
ment against unseating Kellogg on last
Friday, and at the conclusion of his re-
marks Senator Hill obtained the floor
and after reviewing the replies to his ar.
gument on the 18th and 18th of May,
said he would have some plain words
with the gentlemen on his side of the
chamber who had argued against the
resolutions to unseat Kellogg. Their
attitude, he said, was singular and not
logical. The Republicans believed the
Packard Legislature legal, and therefore
believed Kellogg legally entitled to bis
seat. The Democrats who opposed the
resolution admitted the illegality of the
Packard Legislature, yet held that Kel.
logg was entitled to his seat.
Mr.. Butler remarked that he did not
argue that Kellogg was elected, but that
the Senate having within its jurisdiction
declared Kellogg entitled to the seat, no
future Senate had jurisdiction to revise
that action. He thought that if Mr..
Hill submitted to the decision of the
Electoral Commission, though he be-
lieved it wrong, and to the decision of
the Supreme Court in the States rights
cases, which he believed to be wrong, he
could not consistently criticise his But
ler's) position in this matter.
Mr.. Hill went on to argue that the
plain dictate of the Constitution, that
Senators must be chosen by the Legisla-
ture of the State, could not be evaded.
IF the Senator from South Carolina did
not believe the Packard Legislature to
be legal, he could not believe that that
dictate had been obeyed.
Mr.. Butler said he acted according to
his own construction of the Constitution,
not that of the Senator from Georgia or
any other Senator. If this matter now
came up for the first time he would vote
against Kellogg, but he was arguing in
the case now before the Senate, not on
the case which was before it three years
ago. =,
Mr.. Hill, resuming his remarks, said
that when the case was re.opened the
Democratic majority in one day voted
down six resolutions which declared or
assumed that the case was settled.
Mr.. Butler said these votes were in
conclusive; they were on amendments
offered by the opposition to kill the reso-
luton.
Mr.. Hill rejoined that if the Senate
thought the case res a9judicata it should
have voted for these amendments. The
Honorable junior Senator from South
Carolina had voted against them every
time.
Mr.. Hampton explained that he had
been opposed to the re-opening of the
case, but on the assurance that it was not
to be re-opened, that the committee was
merely to take additional testimony for
the information of the Senate, he con-
sented to vote for it. He did not think
it was authorized to make such a report
as it did.
Mr.. Hill, resuming, said the Senators
from South Carolina had selected him as
the mark for their irony and spleen. He
was, however, their friend, and when
friends differed plain words should be
used. When Buffers and Spoford's
cases came before the Committee on
Privileges and Elections the Democratic
members had more difficulty with But
ler's than Spoford's. Spoford's title was
better than Buffers, but the Senate de-
cided in favor of the Legislature that
elected Butler; therefore, they acted
favorably in his case. Mr.. Hill confessed
he was disappointed. He had not
thought when he voted to admit Butler
that he was aiding to admit strength
which would be used to keep out man
with better title. Referring to the de.
nial by Butler that South Carolina had
done nothing to oppress Louisiana, Hill
quoted an article from the Charleston
Ne,vs and Courier to the effect that Kel.
logg was not elected, but "that it should
not be forgotten, our own gallant Butler
was seated on condition that Kellogg
should also be seated, and the Democrats
were in duty bound to stand by the
arrangement" Also an article endors-
ing Buffers argument against unseating
kellogg. Mr.. Hill said he thought these
supported all he had previously said on
the subject.
Referring to Senator Hampton's re.
cent speech, Mr.. Hill wondered why the
Senator had spoken of his own bravery
during the war, and why he had con,
trasted it with the spirit of certain 9th.
ers who, he said, had been Gin safe
place." ~ am brave enough now," said
Mr.. Hill, "neither to boast of my own
achievements nor to deprecate those OF
the Senator from South Carolina. II
did not require war to make me q Union
man. l am, and ever have been, one
from conviction. I feel under no obliga.
ton, therefore, to yield one jot of equal
rights and privileges of the Southern
States under the Constitution in order tc
appease Northern wrath, or to show tc
the Northern people that I have been
brought to the condition of submission
and subservient loyalty"
Replying, Mr.. Butler said: /: If the Sen
ator from Georgia had voted for his But
ler's) admission while in doubt as to hi:
election, it had not increased his respect
for the Senator from Georgia. Ifthere wa:
the slightest doubt in the Senator's mino
concerning his title let him make motion
now to vacate the seat, and he Butler
would join him in demanding the investi
CATION. He proposed to hold his seat by
no such clap-trap as that. He had made
and now made no reflection upon MIR
Hills war record, but the Senator hat
no excuse for attacking South Carolina
while pretending to defend it agains
slurs which he (Butler) had never made
Furthermore, Mr.. Butler said, he wa
glad to learn that the Senator from
Georgia was Union man. If the Sen
ate did not learn that fact, it was not be
cause the Senator did not tell them offer
enough, but there were four years during
which we did not hear so much OF it
Perhaps the Senator had then thought i
prudent to conceal his real opinion.
Mr.. Hampton said that when the Sen
ator from Georgia, months ago, went ou
of his way to warn the Senators from
South Carolina, and to impute imprope