Year: 1867

was an outrage which, at a time when law
and right were observed in Congress, would
have provoked a feeling of indignation in
the country which the representatives who
were guilty Of the meanness and fragrant
wrong would have been afraid to meet
The radical Congressman assume that their
party will sustain any act Of injustice or
indecency which they may commit, and
thus far they have not been mistaken
though there are hopeful indications of a
growing sentiment in favor of obedience
to constitutional requirements and legisla-
tive preceuents.


1t would be insulting to the intelligence
OF the readers Of the Times to make q
formal argument against the authority oi
Congress to exclude from their seats mem
bers lawfully elected and returned and
possessing the requisite legal qualifications
to entltle them to admission. Congress
may do this It has done it. Il may dc
and has done numberless acts which IL
could OILY do by ursupation of power and
by the violation of oaths which the mem
bers have taken to preserve the law which
is their only bond of authority.


1t will net be denied that every member
of Congress who knowingly and deliber-
ately disobeys the provisions of the consti-
tuition is guilty of perjury


The action OF the House in referring the
credentials of the Kentucky members was
a gross and wilful infraction of the spirit.
if not Of the exact letter, of the constitu-
tion. 1t was an assertion that the maiori-
ty would not admit to their seats. upon
their demand for admission, members who
are entitled to instant admission. If a
state may be denied representation for a
month, she may be excluded i"tom it for a
year. If her members, for no other rea-
son tnan that the majority so will it, may
be shut out for one session, the same rea-
son may keep them out indefinitely.


Each House is made "the judge of the
election, returns and qualifications of its
own members" To say that each House
may, under this grant of authority, ex-
clude members duly elected, returned and
qualified, is patent nonsense 1t ia conce-
ded by the radical newspapers that the
present Congress is sadly deficient in
brains, but if any of the representatives
voting for the reference of the Kentucky
credentials is such an engregious fool as to
believe an absurdity Of this kind, he is
more contemplate as Congressman than
! DOSbcrry was as captain Of the watch.
Every one voting for it knew he was viola
ting the spirit of his oath and was COM
miting perjury.


Yet, doubtless, there were some honest
men who voted to refer the credentials.
They have been taught that the commits
sion of perjury in behalf of radica. and
partisan interests while acting as Congre s.
men is 70. Il crime. This is the morality
Of the ruling party, and it is defended BY
professions of religious sentiment, OF re-
gard for holy and philanthropic ends, and
by wordy ard speciOus cant which might
we'll impose on weak and honest men,
whose interests inclined them to an accep>
tance of such doctrine. In charging.
thefore, that every man who voted to deny
to the members from Kentucky the imme-
date admission to which they were enti-
tied did deliberately spit Oh his oath to
support the constitution: 1t is not alleged
that all thus voting believed themselves to
be guilty Of heinous crime. Some OF
them meant to do right, but their dullness
of intellect, and partisan interests and
teachings, have bedeviled their onscien-
ces.


1t may DC claimed that all Congress did
was tc refer the credentials to the appro-
pitiful and beggarly plea will not serve to
defend the infamy. There was nothing to
refer The credentials were in proper form,
and were proof, until rehutting evidence
was presented, that the men presenting them
were lawfully elected. They we're ready to
take the test oath. There was but one of
their seats contested. What question was
referred to the committee? None in relation
to either of these points. The committee
was directed to Investigate a general charge
Of disloyalty against the people of Ken
tucky, and to inquire whether members re-
turned from that State were loyal. On
what ground Was the reference made p
On the assertion that "there was good rea-
son to believe" that the elections were car
ried by force and fraud, and also on the
ground that ait is alleged that several of
the representatives are disloyal.


The overwhelming majority given to the
returned members stamps the first statement
as plain. unvarnished lie. 1t is just as
reasonable to suppose that Democratic
delegation could hc returned from Massa-
chusetts rs that radical one could be elect
ed from Kentucky. AS to lit is alleged,
why was there a change from the usual
form of they say2" What "reliatlc gen
tleman" stands sponsor for this allegation,
whose simple say so, or, peradventure,
whose convictions, or impressions, or
doubts are made authority for denying a
state representation in Congress? Is it
Dirty Work Logan" whose reputation as
liar and demagogue is vouchcd for by
all the radical newspapers in this State in
their christening of-him, and who has al
So been denounced by them all as a traitor,
meaner and more criminal than any in the
South, because he deserted his own State,
which was true to the Union, to aid and
encourage the rebels in other states p
This prostitute was the author Of the reso-
lutions referring the credentials. Was he
the authority for their ''it is alleged y
Chicago Times


- -