Year: 1871

. the whole Democratic party, he will
be met with the utterances-o of my col


league and a similar attempt to attri


butte them to tho whole Republican
party of the Senate. ..-- ..


Mr.. President, I have said all thai


is necessary to be said on this subject
Lof, the amendment of my colleague. =
| The substitute for it, I repeat is moi


worth the paper on which it is written.


Saw with how much. art and skill the


most skillful of all men in this body,


the Senator from Vermont, sought to


magnify the effect of his substitute
lsgive him credit for his skill in all


that < but the plain. and naked truth


is, that the criticisms of my colleague


upon it are all just and well founded.


There is nothing in it practically of


any value whatever; and could vote


for it tonight if it were not that it


attempts to punish people for not pre-


venting offences against the laws of a


State. 1t is because the second sec


ton of this bill undertakes to give


jurisdiction to the Federal Courts of


ofenses, not against the Constitution


of the United States alone; it is be-


cause that section contains one clause


that applies to the laws of the States


alone, and this amendment to it gives


a private right of action in respect of


such crimes it is for that reason that


cannot vote for it. II it were limi-


ted to ofenses against the laws of the


United States or the Constitution of
the United States, it would be we'll


worthy of consideration whether it


might not be adopted. I would say


there was nothing unjust in that, for


it only Furnishes those who could pre-


vent such crimes who have the power
| to prevent them and will not exert


that power. That is all that it would


do if it were limited to offenses against


the United States; but so far as its


practical effect is concerned my COL


league is right in saying it is impotent.


Those We're not his words, but that


was the effect of his criticisms, and it
is the truth. -,


Now, Mr.. President, 1 have only to-


remark upon another point, for l leave
it to my friends who have strangled


the child of my colleague to defend


themselves against his-what shall l
say? "Caustic" would be too Slight
word ''Terrible' is almost too much
of a common place word. What
shall say? Well 1 do not know but
that it is Ku Klux attack. Laugh
ter.


Let lie say to the Senate that the
report of this second Conference Com
mittee preserves the second section. of
the jury test oath act. 1t repeats, as
did the former report, the first section
of that act, but it preserves the sec
ond, and for that reason, if for no
other, never could give my assent to
that report. Although have already |
examined this statute in remarks that |
I have heretofore submitted to the
Senate, j beg leave tonight to repeat
what [ said.


The act was passed in the midst of
the war; in the second year Of the war.
1t was war measure, and cain only be |
defended upon the ground that it was
a war measure. The act consists of
three sections.


The first section declares what shall
be principal cause of. challenge to.'a
grand or petit juror in the Courts of
the United States, and applies to
every Court in the United: States,
in the North or in the South.
That section this report proposes to +
repeal. The House bill, as it came to
us, repealed the whole act. This
report proposes to repeal simply the
first section of the act and topreserve
the second. Under the first section
of the act, making disloyalty prin-
cipal cause of challenge, it was within
the discretion of the parties to the
suit whether they would make the
or not. If they were satified
with the man, if they believed he was
IN honest man, who would render a
rue verdict, they could take him ; and
we'll they might think SO, when the
suit might be on promissory note, a
bill of exchange, a policy of insur-
ance, or might be an action of eject
nent, an action of trespSss quare
,lausun, .tregit, or trespass for as as
'ault. aud battery, an action for SLAM
Ter, breach Of contract, or the like.
They might suppose that this mans
lisloyalty had nothing to do with his ,
forming correct judgment and rem :
]ering a true verdict in such a case;
ind therefore the first section Of this
lct only made it cause of challenge,
md left it to the parties whether they {
would avail themselves of that cause ;
" not. |


But the second section, which is t
perfect anomaly. in legislation, provi- {
led as 1 will now ask the Secretary to s
cad.


The Chief Clerk read as follows: S


"SEc. 2. 11ld be It further enacted,
That at each and every term of any
court OF. the United States, the Dis
rict Attorney, or other person acting
or and in behalf of the United States t
n said CO art, may move, and the
jourt in their discretion may require t
he Clerk to tender to each and every f
erson who may be summoned to- Il
erve as a grand or petit juror or We t
fireman or 'talesman in said Court, a
he following oath or affirmation -. "a
Y GU do solumnly swear Cor affirm, as a
he case may be) that you will support a
be Constitution of the United States g
f America that you have not, with d
ut duress or constraint taken up arms t.
r joined any insurrection or. rebellion t
gainst the United States, that you t
ave not adhered to any insurreetion S
+ rebellion, giving it aid and comfort; "
iat you have not, directly or indirect I
:, giving any assistance in money, or |;
ny other thing, to any person or it
ersons whom you knew, or lad good 81
round to believe, had Joined, or was q