Year: 1870


bers, it was the sole judge it was not
bound TO any decision of the Supreme
Court. The decision Of tho Supreme
Court was entitled to respect but the
decision of no tribunal is authority ov-
er any other tribunal, unless it can re-
verse the decision of that other tribu-
nal It is nothing but precedent it
is only authority when tho tribunal
that pronounces the decision has pow
er to reverse the decision of the infer
ior tribunal. The Senate Of Ohio,
therefore, held that il was the judge Of
what was the Constitution Of Ohio, and
judging for itself, it decided that mu-
lattoes were not entitled to vote in the
State of Ohio, although they had more
white blood than black blood in tL Leir
veins, and ousted the sitting member
and put in the contestant.


Now, sir, you might with just as
much reason interpose and by thearm
ed force Of this Government turn out
that member who was seated ly the
Senate of Ohio and put back the man
who was ousted by the vote of that
body


Mr.. Drake-Will the honorable Sen.
ator from Ohio allow me to ask him O
question


Mr.. Thurman-With very great plea.
sure.


Mr.. Drake-I should like to know oi
tho Senator from Ohio whether the
State he represents on the floor of this
Senate ever attempted to secede from
the Union OF levy war against the U.
nited States and if it did not would
like 10 inquire whether the Senator re.
cognizes no difference at all between
Ohio, loyal to the Union all the time,
and one Of the States in the South that
attempted to secede and waged war a,
gainst the Union2


Mr.. Thurman-Oh, Mr.. President
that may answer very well for my
friend from Missouri TO say 10 his peo
pie out there on the banks of that mud
dy stream, but it will not do here in
the Senate of the United States. lie
may 60 up one of the branches of the
Missouri and say that, and, | have nc
doubt, affect his audience sensibly, but
it will not do hero. / have heard thi,
doctrine Of State suicide | do not be
lieve in it and that shall be briet
answer to the Senator


have already pointed out that up
on your reconstruction laws Georgia
was State in the Union. do moi
give any additional force to her claim
because she complied with your recon
struction laws. do not believe she
was ever out Of tho Union. / do moi
believe a word Of what tho majority ot
the Senate believe, that she had no lie
gal civil government when the wal
was at an end she had complete
State'goyernment then, complete in al
respects. Why, sir, cannot govern
ment exist withaut offices Can there
not be constitution in force though
every officer were TO die ton orrow p
Can there not be State with q consti
tuition though all the members of the
Legislature should resign and all hei
public officers should resign


If tho officers in these States were re
bells, there was remedy for that, and
that was to put in men who were moi
rebels. If they were disqualified by
treason there was q remedy for that
to indict and punish them for treason
and fill their places with men who
were competent to hold the offices. Il
there were provisions in their consti
tutions then that recognized the Con
federate States of America, they were
simply null and void, as the Supreme
Court of the United States decided in
the case of Texas VS., White, at It's last
session. As that court decided, the
State of Texas was in the Union from
the time she was admitted, and never
was out of it for single moment anc
if her government was for the time be
ing vacant ofits officers because the of
ficers had fed, all that was necessary
to restore her to her relations was tC
put loyal mon in their places, and the
work was accomplished As the cour
said, too, in that case, everything tina
they might have interpolated intC
their constitution binding the officers
to swear allegiance to the Confederat,
States was null and void; but 1 viii
say by the way that they never die
that. There was not q Southern Con
stitution which admitted there wal
such thing due as allegiance to th'
Confederate States. Tho only allegi
ance they admitted WAS State allegi
ance the only oath they took was AT
oath of allegiance to the State, with
perhaps an oath to support the Consti
tuition of the Confederate States, but
not ali oath Of allegiance to it. AL
these provisions in their Constitu-
tions tho Supreme Court has held
were absolutely null and void
! Striking them out vf the State Con.
stitutions of the Confederate States
as they stood at the end Of the war
and under the Constitution of the
United States of America they are
just as perfect State Constitutions
~ ~ -, ,,,o,,n hoco,o 4ho n,-,I ,.,o d,