May 10, 1866

The only objection I have to the proposition is that it does not go far enough. 1 would disfranchise them forever. They have no right, founded in justice, to participate in the administration of the Government or exercise political power. If they receive protection in their persons and property, are permitted to share in the nation s bounties, and live in security under the broad tegis of the nation s flag, it is far more than the nation owes them.

Looking at the desolated fields of the South, the beggarly condition of the people, the army of maimed and helpless rebels, and the demoralized stale of society, they must be the most stupid people in the world or they would ask to have them disfranchised themselves, and every loyal southern man does that. Nay, they should place them under such disabilities that they never could exercise political power again. The whole North is full of loyal refugees who do not dare return to their former homes. If they happen to have property there it is destroyed by those persons you propose to continue in power. Reject the amendment disfranchising rebels and you must widen the asylum in the North for those southern people who have sympathy with the Government. Let us have the courage to follow the example of the loyal people of Tennessee and Missouri, and exclude them from the ballot-box. Ask the gallant men of Tennessee what security they would have if the provision disfranchising rebels was repealed. They would tell you they would be overrun by rebels, and that the forty thousand gallant men who battled for the Union would be prostrated at the mercy of these disarmed traitors.

Let us now turn to the North and ask the million of gallant men who for four years stood like the mailed hosts of old between the nation and its destruction, and vanquished and drove back these hirelings of crime, and .they will answer you, no rewards for treason. Ask the maimed and disabled soldier, and he will tell you that he did not think he was giving his leg or his arm to a Government whose representatives would vote away his political rights. Ask the widow, and in tears she will turn to her children and tell you that she was widowed, they were orphaned, they inherited poverty, she struggled in want, but she did not suppose that all this was to confer the power of the Government upon the murderer of husband and father. Ask the whole loyal people of the North, and you will receive for answer that you endanger the peace of the country by trusting the ballot in the hands of the traitor.

Mr. Speaker, I have not time to trace this subject further. I hope the report of the committee will be adopted; and in conclusion lot me say to the one hundred and forty thousand people I have the honor to represent, that if they desire to have the rebels admitted into this House and the ballot placed in the hand of the traitor, they must select some other agent than me, for, so help me God, I will never vote to admit unconditionally a rebel Representative to a seat in this Hall or to place the ballot unrestricted in the hands of the traitor. In that way I shall contribute in rendering "treason odious."

Mi. LONGYEAR. Mr. Speaker, the questions before the House are not so much whether the rebellious States are in or out of the Union; or whether the Government has or has not the right to impose conditions upon their return to working relations with it. Those questions have already been settled by the uniform action and declarations of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Government.

The Supreme Court, as long ago as 1862, declared, in the decision of the prize cases, (2 Blaelc s Reports, 636. 6G7,) that "the present civil war between the United States and the so called confederate States has such character and magnitude as to give the United States the same rights and powers which they might exercise in the case of a national or foreign war and, quoting Vattel for authority, the court further declared that" a civil war breaks the bands of society and Government, or at least suspends their force and effect."

The Thirty Eighth Congress, at its first session, and while the war was still flagrant, by solemn enactment declared the State governments in those States subverted and overthrown, and imposed conditions upon their reconstruction. This enactment most unfortunately did not receive the signature of the President, although he approved of all its provisions in the proclamation which he issued soon after its passage. The same thing has been assumed and acted upon by Congress and by each House in numerous other enactments and resolutions since that time, many of which received the sanction of the late President Lincoln.

The present incumbent of the presidential chair, while he remained the Andrew Johnson of Tennessee for whom the great loyal masses of the nation gave their suffrages for Vice President of the nation in 1864, both before and since his elevation to that position, ay, and since by the hand of treason he became elevated to be the chief Executive of the nation, has declared that all government in those States and in each of them had ceased to exist; and not only that, but that the right to regulate suffrage and to impose conditions in the efforts of those who had been in rebellion to reconstruct State governments existed in the national Government. I will only quote a single but oft repeated declaration of President Johnson upon this point. In each of his famous proclamations appointing provisional governors for the several States in rebellion, occurs this remarkable passage:

"Whereas the rebellion which has been waged by a portion of the people of the United States against the properly constituted authorities of the Government thereof, in the most violent and revolting form, but whose organized and armed forces have now been almost entirely overcome, has in its revolutionary process deprived the people of the State of [North Carolina, e J of all civil government."

The President in each of thoseproclamations also assumed to regulate suffrage and eligibility to office, as follows:

"Provided, That at any election that may be hereafter held for choosing delegates to any State convention, as aforesaid, no person shall be qualified as an elector, or shall be eligible as a member of such convention, unless he shall previously have taken and subscribed the oath of amnesty as set forth in the President s proclamation of May 29, 1865, and is a voter qualified as prescribed by the constitution and laws of the State of [North Carolina, &c.,] in force immediately before the 20th day of May, 1861, [or otherwise as the ease was,] the date of the so called ordinance of secession."

These declarations and acts of the present Executive were made and done, too, after active hostilities had ceased, and the armed force of the rebellion had surrendered to or been broken and dispersed by the superior force of the national Government, events upon the happening of whipli it is contended by the advocates of State rights here and elsewhere the States in rebellion at once resumed all their rights as States of the Union, including, of course, the right of representation in Congress and the right to regulate suffrage and office in their own way._

Without stopping, then, to discuss these questions upon principle, I assume, as proven by authority of all the coordinate branches of the national Government, the following propositions:

1. That as a result of the rebellion, all civil government was destroyed in those States which were engaged in it.

2. That the people of those States can erect new State governments only by virtue of the authority and consent of the national Government, and upon such terms and conditions as the latter may prescribe.

3. And in this connection the national Government. may regulate suffrage and eligibility to office, and make and establish such other regulations as may be necessary for its future security and perpetuity.

4. And it makes no difference in this respect whether such regulations are established by statute or by constitutional amendment. The loyal people who, by their Representatives and Senators constituting the Congress for the time being, have the power to propose constitutional amendments and enact laws for the common welfare, have equal power through their Legislatures or conventions to ratify and make effectual such constitutional amendments.

He who attempts to argue against these propositions does so against the uniform current and logic of the swift passing events of the last five years and their inevitable sequences, and will find all his high sonnding rhetoric return to him empty, like echo from adamantine cliff in a desolate forest.

I do not propose to discuss the question here whether the power to prescribe such regulations and conditions is m the Executive or in the Congress. I believe it is in Congress. The people believe it is in Congress, and the great masses of the loyal people both North and South are looking to Congress to day for protection and security; and for one, I intend to do my duty toward them in that respect to the best of my ability.

The only question really open for discussion is, what regulations and conditions are necessary; and what shall be imposed to insure the future domestic tranquillity of the people and the security and perpetuity of our national existence?

The amendments and bills reported by the committee on reconstruction fall far short of the expectations of the people, and I may say are short of what I may have desired. The fact is the people are always ahead of their legislators in all matters of reform. But so far as the report goes it is in the right direction, and I will not reject it for the sole reason that it does not go far enough. The constitutional amendment proposed by the committee, with a single objection, meets my hearty approval. That objection is to the third section, and it is not that it does not go far enough, nor that it goes too far, but that it comes too late. I would disfranchise every voluntary rebel in the land, and place him where the late Andrew Johnson of Tennessee, at a time when the patriotic predominated over the sinister elements of his nature, said he should be placed," on the back seats" in the great work of restoring the body politic to health and vigor. But that same Andrew Johnson, acting as President of the United States, and under authority, too, of an act of Congress has, in my opinion, placed it beyond our power to do this without a violation of the faith of the Government in the eyes of the whole world.

What is the case presented? Section three reads as follows:

Until the 4th day of July, 1870, all persons who voluntarily adhered to the late insurrection, giving it aid and comfort, shall be excluded from the right to vote for members of Congress and for electors of President and Vice President of the United States. "All persons who voluntarily adhered," &e. Let us see what persons are included in this expression. It would seem that the word "all" is sufficiently comprehensive and can admit of no exceptions; but let us see if its use here is not delusive under the circumstances now surrounding the question. By authority of law, full pardon and amnesty have been granted—

1. To all rebels below a certain rank who should take a certain oath, &c.

2. To all below the rank of colonel who were worth less than §20 000 at the commencement of the rebellion. This included, of course, the great mass of the southern people.

3. Nearly all of the classes above excepted have since received special pardons, and what remain are being pardoned now day by day, and before the proposed amendment can become part and parcel of the Constitution there will probably not be left a single unpardoned rebel in the whole land, from the highest to the lowest.

In the light of the events of the past five years, and of the fiendish barbarism practiced by these rebels during hostilities, and of the devilish hate still rankling in the bosoms of the great mass of them toward the Union and toward loyal men, these are humiliating facts; but still they are facts, and we must face them and not stultify ourselves in the eyes of the world by ignoring them.

Amnesty and pardon, although not strictly synonymous terms, have been used as such in this connection. Amnesty has the effect "to efface the crime and cause it to be forgotten." This is the language of the authorities, and this the effect that has always been given to it by all civilized nations. It not only exempts the party from punishment, but remits him to all his former rights, natural, civil, and political, with simply two exceptions: first, where rights of third persons have intervened; and second, where the disability has been created by statute, and existed at the time of pardon. I concede that if the disability now proposed to be created had existed by the Constitution or by statute at the time of amnesty granted, it would remain until removed by the same formalities; but who ever heard of any civilized nation affixing to an offense a punishment or even a disability after the crime itself had been effaced, wiped out, obliterated by an amnesty or a pardon?

The eminent gentleman from Pennsylvania, the chairman of the committee on the part of the House, who reported this amendment, taking the same view of the law of the case as I do, tells us in effect that the disability is not intended to apply to such as have received pardon and amnesty. He tells us that if the amendment is adopted and becomes part of the Constitution, and one of the amnestied rebels comes to the polls and offers his vote for member of Congress, &c, and shows his pardon, then he has not adhered, &c, and is not included in the expression, "all persons who have adhered," &c. This is no doubt correct; but let me tell the gentleman that in this view of the case the amendment is meaningless, yes, worse than meaningless, it is cause of discord among the friends of the balance of the amendment, where the utmost- harmony should be cultivated. If adopted, it would not stand in the way of a single rebel ballot. Long before it can be adopted, every one of the few unpardoned rebels now remaining will have received the extreme unction of pardon by his Excellency the President of the United States, and will have become a voter by the side of the most loyal, notwithstanding the prohibition. It would be a dead letter.

The provision would also bo so easily evaded by appointing electors of President and Vice President through their Legislatures, as South Carolina has always done.

Let us then reject tli^ dead weight, and not load down good provisions, absolutely essential provisions, by this, which, however good in and of itself, cannot be enforced.

I regard this provision, if adopted, both worthless and harmless, and therefore I shall vote for the proposed amendment as a whole, whether this be rejected or retained. I am heartily in favor of the whole amendment, except this section three, and should be in favor of that if 1 thought it could be given any effect; and 1 have said this much because of my anxiety that the main provisions of the amendment should prevail, and not be jeopardized by the retention of a worthless provision.

Rebels must be taken care of here in the Halls of Congress; and so long as the loyal people of the country remain true to themselves and the Government, traitors will bo taken care of here. The sword of justice will continue to hang over the portals of these Halls, and no traitor will be allowed to pass their thresholds.

Mr. BEAMAN. Mr. Speaker, to say that I am not entirely satisfied with the plan for the reconstruction of the rebel States reported by the committee is probably to utter the sentiment of nearly every member of the House, including the members of that committee. It is most likely, also, that the expectation of the country will be somewhat disappointed. Mindful of the terrible struggle through which we have just passed, with all its sad incidents, the people are naturally earnest, anxious, and watchful. Impressed with the former teaching of your Chief Magistrate, they have come to believe that treason is crime, and ought to be punished; and that in any plan adopted for admitting the people of the rebel States to a participation in the government of the country, ample safeguards will be provided for future security.

Sir, I feel compelled to say that I do not think the report of the committee quite meets their just expectations. Nevertheless, so various are the views of gentlemen of the House, as well as of the individual members of the committee, perhaps it is as nearly satisfactory as any system that could have been agreed on with any well founded hope of adoption. I am inclined, therefore, to support the joint resolution, though I hope it may be amended. I have serious objections to the third section, and I shall experience regret if, through the inflexibility of parliamentary rules, I am compelled to vote upon the original resolution without an attempt to amend it. It seems to me that the third section will be found useless in its results and impracticable in its operation, while it is calculated to foster irritation and bad blood among the people of the South. It makes a show on the face of it of accomplishing what it is impotent to perform; that, is to say, it assumes until the 4th day of July, 1870, to" exclude all persons who voluntarily adhered to the late insurrection, giving it aid and comfort," from the right to vote for electors for President and Yrice President of the United States," yet we very well know that such a provision would be entirely inoperative, because electors for President and Vice President can be appointed by the Legislatures according to a practice that has always obtained in South Carolina. The provision does not extend to the election of Senators, and consequently it can operate only to affect the election of members of this House, and that only for a period of four years.

The State governments, the inspectors of election, the rejection or reception and canvassing of votes, the returns and certificates, in short the whole machinery of the elections will be in the hands and under the control of the very men whom you propose to disfranchise, and the difficulties that will arise in an attempt to execute the law are too obvious to require particular specification. This section looks as though it was intended for ornament rather than for use. Perhaps I should say it has the appearance of having been introduced to multiply the conditions of restoration, thereby rendering the scheme somewhat more imposing. It was doubtless the offspring of compromise, the result of a contest of adverse opinions, in which each one of the progenitors gave up so much of his paternity that the bantling is a mere shadow. It is, however, a shade too thin to blind the eye, and it might as well be removed altogether. The people are not likely to be blinded by so thin a veil, and it is folly to undertake to deceive ourselves. The people do not stand on punctilio. They want no expedient adopted in order to gratify their vanity, or to save a point of honor. They desire the adoption of no measure whose sole object is to assert their power over the rebels; that has already been established in the clash of arms. They want protection and security for the future, and to that end they believe it indispensable that the Government should be administered by loyal hands.

I do not know as there will be an opportunity to offer amendments to this joint resolution; but if permitted, I shall move to strike out the third section and insert in lieu thereof a section which I have taken in substance from the bill introduced from the committee by the gentleman from Pennsylvania. The provision which 1 would have inserted is, as follows:

Sec. 3, No person shall hereafter be eligible to any office under the Government of the United States who is included, ill any ot the following classes namely:

3. The president and vice president of the confederate States of America so called, and the heads of departments thereof.

2. Those who in other countries acted as agents of tli 6 confederate States of America so called.

3. Heads of Departments of the United States, officers of tlio Army and Navy of the United States, and all persons educated at the military or Naval Academy of the United States, judges of the courts of the United States, and members of either llouso of the Thirty Sixth Congress of the United States who gave aid and comfort to the late rebellion.

The disability proposed by this amendment, is quite inconsiderable, if we have regard to the magnitude and consequences of the late rebellion, and I have no doubt it falls short of the public expectation. But inconsiderable as it is, it would at least prevent the intrusion of the arch traitor Jefferson Davis into the Senate of the United States, and would exclude permanently from this Hall the rebels who left it in 1861 for the field of blood. Nor .could such a measure be deemed objectionable by any" candid mind, whether it be regarded as a question of security for the future or as a punishment for past offenses. What other nation on the face of the earth would be so merciful, so forgiving? Those men, by their flagitious crimes, have created a mortgage of billions upon the property of posterity that is to be. They have murdered hundreds of thousands of their fellow men and endangered our national existence. They have forfeited citizenship, property, life, which justice refuses to restore. But we forget justice, and remember only mercy. We give them Kick life, property, citizenship. And is not this enough? Shall we restore them to power; and make them our rulers? Such a determination should be preceded by another amendment to the Constitution. The word treason should be expunged from our organic law.

Mr. Speaker, I have little more to say. My views in regard to the great subject of reconstruction have been expressed in this Chamber more than once, and I do not wish to repeat them. But I desire to say that in my judgment the remainder of the joint resolution has great merit and ought to be adopted. I did look for more thorough and reliable protection for the loyal men in the rebel States than we are likely to secure. 1 did hope to see the rights of the freedmen completely established. I did believe that we should not ignore the services of the brave colored men who heroically bled in the defense of their country country from which thus far they have received injuries rather than blessings I did hope that a just, if not a grateful country, would insist that the preservers of liberty should enjoy some share of its fruits; that we should have the manhood and magnanimity to declare that men who have wielded the sword in defense of their country are fit to be intrusted with the ballot. But I am convinced that my expectations, hitherto fondly cherished, are doomed to some disappointment.

Yet I take this occasion to place on record the assertion, that if this generation shall fail fully to perform the duty that Providence seems to have imposed upon it, the blame will not rest wholly upon the Thirty Ninth Congress. Every measure adopted for the security of the people against, rebels must be carried by a two thirds vote of each House. Against an antagonistic Executive a majority of Congress alone cannot adopt legislation needful to the condition of the country.

But I will not on this account abandon all. T. will accept of the best arrangement available. I will vote for the substitute I propose, if I have an opportunity. I will vote simply to strike out the third section, if I can do no more; and failing in that, I will vote for the joint resolution as it stands.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the arguments made by the honorable gentlemen upon the other side; and out of five or six to whom I have attentively listened, only one has treated the minority on this side of the House with common courtesy or eomin on respect. I am sorry that a grave and important question like this cannot be discussed by the representatives of the people of this country without indulging in vile vituperation of those who happen to disagree with the majority. Sir, I honor the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. B xks for the manner in which he has always treated us on this side, and for the ability with which he has discussed the questions which have come before this House for consideration. Sir, I think it is belittling the character of this House for a gentleman of such high standing and of so much intellect as the honorable gentleman from the Lancaster district of I Pennsylvania £Mr. Stevens] to commence his argument by charging us here with being nothing but" catamounts." Such a method of treating these great questions will not settle the present difficulties of the country, nor heal the bleeding wounds of the Republic. Such a course of proceeding will not bring back our country to the enjoyment of the blessings of civil liberty and those great principles of constitutional freedom for which our revolutionary fathers fought. Sir, I had hoped that after the investigation we have had upon the different subjects which have agitated this Congress, the time had come' when gentlemen upon both sides of the House would turn their hearts from bloody strife to a contemplation of the blessings of peace and union in this land.

I do not mean, sir, as is now proposed by the measure under consideration, to have peace by disunion, but I mean to have peace by restoring and referring to the instrumentalities by which the Constitution and the Union were first established by our fathers; and I believe, if these instrumentalities, which were founded in a spirit of compromise, charity, friendship, love, and affection, were employed in this House, the bonds which have been torn asunder by four years of bloody war will be again cemented together.

I believe while I am here sustaining the opposition to this joint resolution, I am fortified by one who holds the reins of power in the presidential chair, a patriot and statesman, a man whose whole ambition is to have back again that glorious Union, and the old flag with every star there emblazoned upon it the emblem of victory and of the unity of all the States, whether North or South. He wants all the States, as heretofore, to be represented in reference to the legislation of the country.

While the proposition which has been produced here is not so rabid as some of the propositions agreed to be submitted by this committee, yet I say that it is fraught with great danger and evil to the country, and the elementary foundations upon which the liberties of this Union have rested for seventy five years are about to be thrown down and trampled in the dust; and that glorious flag which was carried in triumph during the last war is about to be trampled under foot, and the time has arrived when Andrew Johnson and the Democratic party have determined to j put that flag upon their shoulders and to plant it upon the dome of the State capitol of South Carolina, and to have it waving there as it is over the dome of the Capitol of the United States, representing a union of love and equal representation.

Now, sir, I have examined these propositions with some minuteness," and I have come to the conclusion different to what some others have come, that the first section of this programme of disunion is the most dangerous to liberty. It saps the foundation of the Government; it destroys the elementary principles of the Statesit consolidates everything into one imperial despotism; it annihilates all the rights which lie at the foundation of the Union of the States, and which have characterized this Government and made it prosperous and great during the long period of its existence. This section of the joint resolution is no nOTe nor less than an attempt to embody in the Constitution of the United States that outrageous and miserable civil rights bill which passed both Houses of Congress and was vetoed by the President of the United States upon the ground that it was a direct attempt to consolidate the power of the States and to take away from them the elementary principles which lie at their foundation. It is only an attempt to ingraft upon the Constitution of the United States one of the most dangerous, most wicked, most intolerant, and most odious propositions ever introduced into this House or attempted to be ingrafted upon the fundamental law of the Federal Union.

It provides that no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. What are privileges and immunities? Why, sir, all the rights we have under the laws of the country are embraced under the definition of privileges and immunities. The right to vote is a privilege. The right to marry is a privilege. The right to contract is a privilege. The right to be a juror is a privilege. The right to be a judge or President of the United States is a privilege. I hold if that ever becomes a part of the fundamental law of the land it will prevent any State from refusing to allow any thing to anybody embraced under this term of privileges and immunities. If a negro is refused the right to be a juror, that will take away from him his privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States, and the Federal Government will step in and interfere, and the result will be a contest between the powers of the Federal Government and the powers of the States. It will result in a revolution worse than that through which we have just passed. It will rock the earth like the throes of an earthquake until its tragedy will summon the inhabitants of the world to witness its dreadful shock. I believe it will be, if that contest comes between Federal and State powers, a time when nature will bleed with agony in every part. That, sir, will be an introduction to the time when despotism and tyranny will march forth undisturbed and unbroken, in silence and in darkness, in this land which was once the land of freedom, where the sound of freedom once awakened the souls of the sons and daughters of America, when from the mountain tops to the shore of the ocean they drank in the love of liberty.

I assert that the second section of this proposed amendment is unparalleled in ferocity. It saps the foundation of the rights of the States, by taking away the representation to which they would be entitled under the present Constitution. When the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Bingham] brought forward a proposition from the committee on reconstruction to amend the Constitution of the United States, interfering with the elementary principles of taxation and representation, the principles for which our fathers fought when they rebelled against the tyranny of King George and the English Parliament who undertook to tax the people of the colonies without representation, the proposition was defeated in this House upon the ground that it would destroy a fundamental principle, that there should be taxation only according to representation.

This, sir, is precisely such a proposition as that. It declares that if the southern people refuse to allow the negroes to vote, then all that portion of the male colored population of twenty one years of age and upward shall be excluded in the basis of representation—shall not be counted in ascertaining how many Representatives the States are entitled to.

The honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Stevens] has the frankness to state to the House what the object and purpose of the second clause are. He says:"

The effect of this provision will be either to compel the States to grant universal suffrage or so to shear them of their power as to keep them forever in a hopeless minority in the national Government, both legislative and executive."

Yes, gentlemen, it is but the negro again appearing in the background. The only object of the constitutional amendment is to drive the people of the South, ay, and even the people of the North, wherever there is much of a negro population, to allow that population not qualified but universal suffrage, without regard to intelligence or character, to allow them to come to the ballot-box and cast their votes equally with the white men.

Why do you not meet this question boldly and openly? Why do you undertake to deceive the people by offering to them an amendment which you say is based upon a principle of justice, that only the voting population shall be represented, when you admit by your leader in this House, the honorable gentleman [Mr. Steven s who introduced into the committee this whole scheme of disunion and despotism, that the object of this amendment is to force the southern States to grant to the negro unrestricted suffrage?

Sir, I want it distinctly understood that the American people believe that this Government was made for white men and white women. They do not believe, nor can you make them believe—the edict of God Almighty is stamped against it—that there is a social equality between the black race and the white.

I have no fault to find with the colored race. I have not the slightest antipathy to them. I wish them well, and if I were in a State where they exist in large numbers I would vote to give them every right enjoyed by the white people exceptthe right of a negro man to marry a white woman and the right to vote. But, sir, this proposition goes further than any that has ever been attempted to be carried into effect. Why, sir, even in Rhode Island to day there is a property qualification in regard to the white man s voting as well as the negro. Andyet Representatives of the eastern, middle, western, and some of the border States come here and attempt in this indirect way to inflict upon the people of the South negro suffrage. God deliver this people from such a wicked, odious, pestilent despotism! God save the people of the South from the degradation by which they would be obliged to go to the polls and vote side byside with the negro!

Mr. KELLEY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROGERS. I am always willing to yield, but in a half hour speech I cannot.

The committee dare not submit the broad proposition to the people of the United States of negro suffrage. They dare not to day pass the negro suffrage bill which passed this House in the Senate of the United States because, as I have heard one honorable and leading man on the Republican side of the House say, it would sink into oblivion the party that would advocate before the American people the equal right of the negro with the white man to suffrage.

And I do not believe that the gentlemen who favor this amendment believe that a single proposition contained in it will ever be adopted by three fourths of th% States. Why do you not do something practical? We have been here something like six months. We have labored, toiled, and endeavored to bolster up the remains of the old Union, and you come in at this late day of the session with a proposition which you know—and I put it to the conscience of any man on the Democratic or Republican side of the House—will never be adopted by three fourths of the States.

Sir, I want some principle embodied in a constitutional amendment that the southern States will accept. I desire to see the Union restored, the Union of our fathers. I want peace, prosperity, happiness, greatness, grandeur, and glory such as characterized this nation when the Democratic party had control. I want you to put such a proposition before the people as shall meet their approbation. Do not pretend that you are in favor of the unity of the States when you offer a proposition which every reasonable, honorable, conscientious man must know will never be adopted by the States. Do you believe the people of the South will close their eyes to the teaching of ages and wait for shackles and chains to convince them that their liberties are endangered and allow no awakening convulsions to shake their rugged minds until despotism shall eat out their vitals?

I am not unmindful of the lessons taught us by the despotism of the Old World. I remember Poland and Hungary, and I stand here protesting against this measure which is more wicked than the tyranny practiced upon them. I believe under God that Andrew Johnson will plant the flag of liberty on every hill top of this land until the tidings shall go forth to the civilized world that the United States of America are united in one bright constellation based upon equal representation.

You come out with another proposition, in the third section, to disfranchise a million voters, and I think I can say with safety that a speech has not been made on the other side wherein something was not said in favor of the enfranchisement of the human race, and yet you come here to day in the face of heaven and this Congress, and undertake to enunciate a doctrine that will, if carried out, disfranchise seven or eight million people, and that will put them in a worse condition than the serfs of Russia or the downtrodden people of Poland and Hungary until the year 1870. Itis an entire change of front. You have been all the time maintaining the principle of representation based upon the voting population, and now, when these people have been so unfortunate as to be burdened with a free colored race, in consequence of the sins of northern fanatics and secessionists, you propose to disfranchise seven or 'eight million who had no original participation in the matter.

Why, sir, the Scriptures tell me that when Christ came upon the earth the fallen world had been doomed to punishment for the commission of sin and liad been assigned to eternal damnation. xVnd I am informed by the same Scriptures that Christ gave His body, His blood, and His soul as a propitiation for the sins of mankind. Now, I ask you to emulate the noble example of the Saviour of the world. Let us treat our southern brethren like men, like freemen, like fellow citizens And we will have a laurel crown placed upon our brows, if not here, then in heaven, and we shall receive the plaudit," Well done, good and faithful servants of the Republic."

There is no honor in standing here and abusing the southern people. The revolution through which we have just passed was such a revolution as Abraham Lincoln, when a member of Congress some years ago, said that the people had a right to engage in as an effort to throw off a Government they did not like and to establish another that they preferred. The people of the South attempted to revolutionize the Government; they arrayed large armies against the United States and failed. And if we had failed in our revolution against Great Britain I have no doubt there would have been found in the Parliament of that country radicals who would have urged against us what the radicals here urge against the people of the South.

Our people have shed their blood and spent their treasure in profusion to preserve this Union. The bones of our brave soldiers are now bleaching upon the soil of Virginia. I have not yet forgotten that the sacred tomb of Washington, around which our soldiers gathered and renewed their vows to preserve the institutions of liberty bequeathed to us by our fathers, is in the soil of Virginia, one of the Statej which a majority of the members of| this Congress are trying to keep out of this Union.

Rebellion or revolution never has been considered by the civilized world, as having that odiousness and moral turpitude that attaches to men for the commission of henious crimes. And when the honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kelley] undertakes to charge the great masses of the South as being murderers like Probst, he goes counter to the history of the world, and against the revolution which in the end gave Magna Charta to England, and which handed down to this country those bulwarks of liberty upon which our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution are founded. I say they are not murderers, they are not thieves, they are not felons; they are simply political convicts before the altar of patriotism. And the patriotic man who now sits in the presidential chair has, in the spirit of Christianity and humanity, extended to these men pardons, which I say, which the courts say, which tradition says, and which the history of the world says, relieve their recipients of all the effects consequent upon the crime.

Mr. KELLEY. As the gentleman has referred to me personally-—

Mr. ROGERS. I cannot be interrupted, for I have but thirty minutes.

Mr. KELLEY. I have to say

Mr. ROGERS. I cannot be interrupted.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Rogers] is entitled to proceed without interruption.

Mr. KELLEY. As the gentleman misrepresents me

Mr. ROGERS. I cannot yield.

Mr. KELLEY. And will not yield for an explanation.

The SPEAKER. Thegentleman fromPcnnsylvania [Mr. Kelley] is not in order and will take his seat.

Mr. KELLEY (taking his seat.) I must pronounce his statement false.

Mr. ROGERS. I say the gentleman must not come here and vilify the people of the South in this way by comparing them with murderers, and by bringing in the argument that they are as deserving of reprobation and punishment as the monster Probst. I say the masses of the people in the South are not to blame for this war at all. It was the leaders of the South, such men as Yancey and others there, and the fanatical demagogues of the North, some of whom the President has named, (I of course except those upon this floor,) who are guilty of this war.

Sir, you can never win the affections of any people by treating them in the manner in which you propose to treat those people by these measures. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Stevens] is an honest man; I give him credit for that, for I have taken particular notice and studied his caliber, and I believe he is honest in his opinions.

Yes, sir, the honorable gentleman [Mr. Stevens] says that these persons can come in after the 4tli of July, 1870. This resolution does not guaranty any such thing. We must refer to the bill with which the committee accompany the resolution. That bill provides that every State in this Union that is now unrepresented must, before being allowed to have Representatives here, even though they can take the test oath, ratify this constitutional amendment. Though this constitutional amendment should be ratified by three fourths of the States, not one of the eleven States now unrepresented can have representation here unless each State itself joins in ratifying it. Is that fair? Ithas been said by the honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania that nineteen States —three fourths of those that have never passed acts of secession sufficient for the ratification of this constitutional amendment. Why, then, do you seek to compel each of the southern States to ratify the amendment and alter its constitution and laws in conformity thereto, before you will admit here, on taking the usual oath, such honorable and loyal men as are now presenting themselves as Representatives from the State of Tennessee and the State of Arkansas?

Mr. FARNSWORTH. Mr. Speaker, in my half hour I shall confine myself to the amendments of the Constitution now under consideration. When the bill reported by the committee of fifteen comes up for action by this House I may desire to say something in regard to it. I intend to vote for this amendment in the form reported, with the exception of the third section. It is not all I could wish; it is not all I hope may yet be adopted and ratified; for I am not without hope that Congress and the people of the several States may yet rise above a mean prejudice and do equal and exact justice to all men, by putting in practice that self evident truth" of the Declaration of Independence, that Governments "derive their just powers from the consent of the governed," and giving to every citizen, white or black, who lias not forfeited the right by his crimes, the ballot. But I do not think it is becoming in a legislator to oppose some good because the measure is not all he wants.

The first section of the amendment proposed is as follows:

Sec. 1. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of its laws.

So far as this section is concerned, there is but one clause in it which is not already in the Constitution, and it might as well in my opinion read, "No State shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." But a reaffirmation of a good principle will do no harm, and I shall not therefore oppose it on account of what I may regard as surplusage.

"Equal protection of the laws;" can there be any well founded objection to this? Is not this the very foundation of a republican government? Is it not the undeniable right of every subject of the Government to receive "equal protection of the laws" with every other sub-_ jeet? llow can he have and enjoy equal rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" without equal protection of the laws?" This is so self evident and just that no man whose soul is not too cramped and dwarfed to hold the smallest germ of justice can fail to see and appreciate it.

The second section of the amendments proposed is as follows:

Sec. 2. Representatives shall bo apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indiansnot taxed. But whenever in any State the elective franchise shall be denied to any portion of its male citizens not le s than twenty ono years of age or in any way abridged, except, for participation in rebellion or other crime, the basis of representation in such State shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens not less than twenty ono years of age.

I like this better than the one this House adopted some time since, and which was defeated in the Senate. That amendment I declared then, as I do now, that I did not like. It received my vote in common with many other members of this House, but with hesitation, doubt, and protest. I will not reiterate the reasons now; but, sir, I have no sympathy with nor approval for the denunciations which the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Stevens] has seen fit to hurl at those Senators who differed with him and defeated the adoption of that amendment. I rather admire their patriotism, their courage, and their sense.

The amendment, however, now under consideration is free from what I considered the most objectionable features of the other.

The Constitution now provides for the apportionment of Representatives according to the "whole number of free persons" and "three fifths of all other persons." Consequently, before emancipation, three fifths of the slaves were enumerated, which gave to the slave States nineteen Representatives in Congress, and as many electors of President, based upon a constituency of slaves alone. But now there are no" other personsall are free; and when the other two fifths are added in the enumeration they will give the late slave States thirteen more Representatives and electoral votes than before, making thirty two Representatives and electors for the four million emancipated slaves. Now, this amendment says to those States this: "If the freedmen are so degraded and ignorant as to be unworthy of enfranchisement; if they are not capable of governing themselves, but must be hold in subjection to and governed by their late masters, then they are not fit to govern the country through the votes of others." They shall not by any such prestidigitation, be dead at the ballot-box, but alive here, dumb, without a voice for their own government, and with thirty two voices on this floor, and thirty two votes for President and Vice President. They shall not be used to swell their rebel masters into giants and dwarf the loyal and patriotic men of the free States into Tom Thumbs! If you deny to any portion of the loyal citizens of your State the right to vote for Representatives you shall not assume to represent them, and, as you have done for so long a time, misrepresent and oppress them. This is a step in the right direction; and although I should prefer to see incorporated into the Constitution a guarantee of universal suffrage, as we cannot get the required two thirds for that, I cordially support this proposition as the next best.

This amendment, too, I fully believe, will in a reasonably short period bring universal suffrage.

The fourth section of this amendment, repudiating the rebel debt and claims for slaves, will be most heartily adopted and approved by every loyal man in the nation. Every man or woman who holds a Government bond, or who pays a tax, every crippled soldier or widow of a dead soldier, who holds apension certificate, and everybody who hates treason and rebellion, and prays for the prosperity of the Government, will rejoice at its adoption.

The third section excludes all persons who voluntarily adhered to the rebellion, giving it aid and comfort, from the right to vote for members of Congress, and for electors for President and Vice President until the 4th of July, 1870. I cannot regard this section as of any practical value. I believe it to be difficult, if not impossible, of fulfillment; and I have fears that it may greatly embarrass, if not defeat, the adoption of the other sections should we pass it through this House.

If the rebels are to be disfranchised at all, they should be for a longer period. Again, some rebels are deserving of a total and lasting disfranchisement, while others who are embraced in this provision are not near so criminal. But such a provision would be taken to imply that all shall have the right to vote after 18 0 Besides, there is a large class of men, both in the North and South, equally, yea, and more, guilty than thousands of tlxe misguided men who will be disfranchised by this provision, who will not be affected by it. J allude to those politicians and others at the South who, keeping themselves out of danger, set on the ignorant and brave to fight for what they were told by these rascals were "their rights;" and to other politicians, editors, "copperheads," in the North, some of whom were and are members of Congress, who encouraged them and discouraged our soldiers.

How is it to be ascertained who "gave aid and comfort 1 to the insurrection? Is it by challenge and oath at the polls, or shall we have a registration throughout the United States with officers to settle and adjudge that question as to every voter? It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that this provision is worse than useless, and will very much mar the beneficent effect of the other most excellent provisions of this amendment. Why, sir, the almost universal testimony from the rebel States is that the soldiers who fo ght us in the field accept their situation of defeated and vanquished" with a much better grace than the politicians and non combat ants. They do not want to fight again. They are inspired with a wholesome respect for northern character and for the Government. They have ceased their bragging, and are willing to accept the position which the results of the war has placed them in.

Then, with the exception of the third section, i am heartily for the amendment, and if instead of that section we could incorporate a provision into the Constitution which should forever disqualify all the leading rebels from holding any office under the United States, thus making "treason odious" and traitors infamous, the country would hail it with joy. xsut, Mr. Speaker, there are men in this Mouse who are opposed to making any amendments to the Constitution, as they say, "until the revolted States are represented here."

They say that those States are entitled "of right" to have their Senators -ud Representatives m this Capitol. They say that it is wrong to enact any legislation affecting those States without first" consulting them." This is the pretense. The real fact is they know very well that if each of those States had its two Senators m the other end of the Capitol, and the members which the present basis of representation gives them in this end, amendments would be impossible, for their votes, added to those already here, who have been upon their side throughout the war, will always prevent their adoption.

What would be the result in such a case? Mr. Speaker, I tremble for my country when I contemplate the possibility of such a conclusion to the bloody struggle we have gone through. Let me enumerate some of the calamities which will follow:

1. There would be the admission to Congress, and other places of power, of unrepentant and unwashed murderers and traitors.

2. The driving from their borders of every loyal man and woman who has been faithful to the Government.

3. Repeal of the civil rights bill, and grinding to the very depths of misery, compared with which slavery would be a boon, the four million freedmen.

4. Assumption by the General Government of the rebel debt, and payment to rebel masters for their slaves.

5. They would extend the pension laws to embrace the traitors who fought against the Government, and would pay the claims of rebels for damages by the war.

C. They would elect for the next President not Andrew Johnson, as some suppose, but Robert 15. Lee, who might possibly reward his northern friends by giving places in his Cabinet to Fernando Wood, of New York, and Vallandigham, of Ohio.

Such is the picture. Why, sir, rather than such a consummation, a thousand times rather that we had never pulled trigger or drawn sword to maintain the integrity of the Government. Better, a million times better, that we had saved the blood its preservation has cost us. Why, sir, the very bones of theuncoffined dead would turn in their graves at such a result of their sacrifice. I know, and with shame confess it, that there are recreants and apostates among us, not many, I thank God, however, but some there are now in Congress, who have been trusted by an honest and confiding constituency, but who prefer to bask in the sunshine of executive favor, who rather "crook the pregnant hinges of the knee where thrift may follow fawning," and betray their trust; but their number is small.

The tribe of Judas has never been a very flourishing one, for those who do not, like Judas, in remorse hang themselves, very soon wither under the scorching indignation of mankind. There arenot enough of them, I trust, to defeat what is absolutely demanded by the country. And the country dctes demand that we ingraft upon the organic law of the nation, placing them in the custody of the whole people, beyond the reach of party or faction, or of sudden passion, to repeal them, these or similar and stronger amendments. The preservation of the Government requires it. The rights and liberties of the loyal poor cannot be preserved without it. The financial credit of the Government will be ruined unless it is done. These things to me seem inevitable.

But those gentlemen upon the other side of the House, whose vocation seems to te to oppose every measure which is in the interest of the Government and of humanity, think it would be an excellent idea to have the rebels here, to themselves vote upon and fix the conditions of reconstruction. A most happy idea! Having failed to destroy the Government by a resort to arms, now only once let them in here under the old apportionment, which makes a rebel of South Carolina as big as two or three loyal men of Illinois, let them in with the blood of slain patriots yet dripping from their fingers, and the doubly damning crime of starving prisoners still blackening their souls, and then talk about amending the Constitution.

Sir, the Constitution makes Congress the judge of the election and qualification of its own members. The Constitution also declares that" the Government" (not the President) shall guaranty to each State a republican form of government." When a Territory makes application for admission as a State, the Congress has first to pass the law, and fix the terms for its admission.

The States in rebellion revolted, destroyed their State governments as States of this Union; fought us four years for a separate nationality; were vanquished. Now, who shall determine the conditions upon which Congress shall receive their Senators and Representatives again? Who shall say whether they have readopted a republican form of government?

The President seems to suppose it his prerogative. But the President will yet learn that he is not the" Government." He dictated to those States conditions, what they should and should not put into their constitutions, and cannot Congress, the representatives of the people, the real" Government," do the same?

The whole copperhead fraternity applaud the President. Rebels South and sympathizers with rebellion North glorify Andrew Johnson; the devilish company of traitors praise him; the confederates ot Booth and Payne praise him; the importers of poisoned clothing praise him; the glorious company of Jeff. Davis, his cabinet, his congress, his generals, with all the enemies of freedom in our own land, glorify him; and the enemies of liberty and republican institutions throughout the world, allwho were on the side of the rebellion and against us throughout the war, praise and magnify his name. These, together with a few Judases and Esaus, applaud Andrew Johnson. Yet he dictated conditions to the rebel States, and cannot the law making power of the Government do the same?

Sir, it is high time that traitors and the world shall know that the same men who preserved the Government from destruction, who made the laws, furnished the means, and did the fighting necessary for its preservation and defense, ought to and will reconstruct and do what is necessary to maintain it. The same who. dictated terms to rebels in the field ought to and will dictate the terms upon which, and which only, they may be received into fellowship and power again. Men to whom the people have intrusted positions of high honor andpower may apostatize and betray them for a little season, but they are sure to be crushed underthe wheels of the great car of the people s wrath.

There are some who suppose that men who have given limbs and health and the best years of their lives for the salvation of their country, can now be bought for .a petty post office; that fathers who have laid their sons upon the altar of their country are to be turned aside with the hope of a little temporary, contemptible patronage. Such persons do not know the American people, the Union people of the North. They have sacrificed too much to turn back now; their patriotism is made of better material, of sterner stuff than that. A people, in whose every house there is either a returned soldier or the vacant chair of one who never will return, cannot be bought with any such stuff. And it is strange that men in high places do not know these things. Are they both blind and deaf? Why, sir, a man need not read the papers to find it out. If he will but put his ear to the ground he may still hear the tramp, tramp, tramp, of the men who marched with Sherman to thesea, and with Grant to Richmond and Vieksburg, still keeping time to the same music, and still animated and inspired by the same determination. The very air is vocal with the loud demands of the people; while the invisible spirits of half a million of the noblest men who oyer lived, and who sleep the sleep which shall know no wakening until the last great roll call is sounded, beseech us that wc do not let their sacrifice bo in vain.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield the* remainder of my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts. [.Mr. Dawes.]

Mr. DAWES. Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to discuss the merits of this measure, for 1 give it, with the exception of the third section, my hearty support. I shall vote for the amendment if I cannot get the section excluded. But I prefer not to stake the infinite good of the remainder upon the uncertainty of ever incorporating the third section in the Constitution. I desire now to call the attention of the House again to the question which I raised yesterday, and to which my colleague [Mr. Banks] has referred in the remarks which he made a short time ago, namely, that of a possible contest in the Electoral College. I do feel that the question, notwithstanding the easy solution of it to which he has arrived, has more of a serious character in it than seems to have suggested itself to his mind; and with the indulgence of the House I will endeavor to show it.

There is no legislation in the land upon the subject. The only provision governing the counting of the votes of the Electoral College is in the Constitution itself; and it is in these words:"

The President of the Senate shall, in thoprescneo of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates; and the votes shall thuu be counted." But who shall decide, if there be a dispute, whether a vote has come from a man legally chosen? There is no tribunal yet erected to determine that fact. Chancellor Kent says that it is casus omissus, a case that has not been provided for by the framers of the Constitution; that there is no provision in the laws or the Constitution of the United States by which that may bo determined. Whether or not it bo beyond our power under the Constitution to make such provision, certain it is that we have made no such provision. Chancellor Kent said upon this point, as reported in the debate in connection with the very case which has been cited by my colleague, that of the Wisconsin vote in 185G, that it was a casus omissus, and neither law nor the Constitution itself had provided a solution of the difficulty. When the nation should be involved in such a contest he trembled forthc result. He speaks of it in his Commentaries in the following words:" The Constitution does not express by whom the votes are to be counted and the result declared. Ill the case of questionable votes and it closely contested election, this power may be important; and I presume, in the absence of all legislative provision on the subject, that the President ol the Senate counts the votes and determines the result, and that the House are present only as spectators, to witness the fairness and accuracy of the transaction."

Upon the occasion alluded to by my colleague, Henry Winter Davis used this language:

Now sir no strict constructionist, or wide or loose constructionist, can find any function confided to both Houses together or to one separately, which enables them to pass, preliminarily, upon the point whether one vote shall be counted or another rejected. No judgment lb called for at all. On the contrary, the Const i tut ion carefully avoids asking for any judgment by anybody upon a mere count."

The idea of referring this to the two Houses in their separate capacity for solution involves at once another difficulty. The two Houses in their separate capacity act as legislators, and legislators alone, and their functions are all prescribed by the Constitution itself. This is not one of them. They cannot as separate bodies act upon the genuineness of the election of a member of the Electoral College, for they have not been constituted for any such purpose nor clothed with any such power. They are not clothed with the judicial power of passing upon the validity of an election of President and Vice President; and suppose the Senate comes to one conclusion and the House to another, what is the result? Suppose the Senate in the Vv i consin case had determined that Mr. Buchanan was elected and the House in its separate capacity had determined that no one was elected, the Constitution requires that the House, thereupon, shall proceed immediately, yes, immediately is the command of the Constitution, without the concurrence of the Senate, to choose a President. Then comes the terrible peril in which this country will be involved, the ordeal through which it will have to pass where the House of Representatives determine one way and the Senate the other. I do not mean to say it is not within our power under the Constitution to provide a tribunal; upon that question there is no occasion to remark. I have only to say that as yet 110 such tribunal h3o been provided. On the occasion alluded to by my colleague it was the opinion of learned men both in the House and in the Senate that the country barely escaped a revolution. They did not decide, as I understood my colleague to say, by passing into their respective Halls whether the vote of Wisconsin should be counted or not. The question was not decided, and remains to be decided to this day. After being in convention and witnessing the opening of the votes, the Senate of its own motion left this Hall and went into their separate Chamber before the work was completed and there undertook to complete by concurrent action, by joint committee of the two Houses, whatever failed to be done here in the meeting of the two bodies, growing out of the dispute about the Wisconsin vote-

But, Mr. Speaker, they failed to accomplish anything. Their resolution was laid upon the table. So with a similar resolution in the House. To day it has not been decided whether those votes of Wisconsin should be counted or not. Now, suppose the disputed vote had determined the result, and suppose the House differed in its conclusion with the Senate of the United States, and the House elected one man President and the Senate declared that another man was elected. It needs no argument and no suggestion from me to show the House the peril in which the nation would have been involved, and all this in a time of comparative peace. That is one objection I have to the third section in the proposed amendment of the Constitution unions you erect some tribunal to decide the question which may be made. It increases that peril by increasing the danger of a contest, and at a time, too, when there is not yet peace. The embers of war are still glowing. Still, as I said before, 1 am disposed to vote for it if that cannot be stricken out, but I will give it my hearty support, and so will every loyal heart, if not embarrassed by that clause

Let me read, if I have a moment s time, what was said by a distinguished gentleman who has since been Governor of his State, Mr. Washburn, of Maine, when the peace of our country came so nigh being disturbed by the Wisconsin case:

"The Constitution provides that the President of the Senate, in the presence of the two Houses, shall open all certificates, and that the votes shall be counted, and the person having the greatest number of votes for President shall "bo President of the United States, if such number bo a majority of the wholcimmberof electors appointed; and so in regard to the Vice President. The votes shall be opened in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives and then counted. By whom? There is no provision of the Constitution, or of law, that they shall be counted by the Senate or the House, or by a joint convention. Thoic has been no joint convention, nor could there have been any. The assemblage hero could do nothing for which it had not the authority of law, and there is no law authorizing the count of these vote* by a joint convention, or prescribing the rules and regulations to be observed therein. Itwas the duty of the President of the Senate here, in the presence of the two Houses, to open the certificates, and to cause the votes to be counted. The Houses had directed how they were to bo counted, by a teller appointed on the part of the Senate and two tellers appointed on the part of the House. These tellers made the count, and here, in the presence of us all, made their report to the President of the Senate; and the President of the Senate, in the presence ot the two Houses, and in exact conformity with the provisions of tKo Constitution, did declare the whole number of votes, and did declare who had the majority. Nothing but that could have been done. There was no power on the part of the Senate, or on the part of the House, to interfere with the execution of this duty precisely as specified in the Constitution and in the resolution of the the two Houses."

I hold, therefore, that no motion whatever can bo made, and that the meeting, under the Constitution, the law of 1792, and the joint resolution, is functus officio. I have no doubt, sir, that there is here a casus omissus; that there is no law and no provision of the Constitution by which anything can possibly be done except what has been done by the President of the Senate in presence of the two Houses. I hold that he ruled aright when he refused to entertain the motions made to him, and when he announced from tbcc n air, in presence oftlie Senate, and to the House, what had been declared to him by the tellers. That is all that ho did, and all that he had authority todo. lam, at the same time, very clear that it is of the highest importance that there should be some legislation on this subject. AH that we can now do is to acquiesce in the decision that has been made, and to set ourselves to work immediately for the passage of a law which will prevent any trouble or difficulty of this kind in future. I received a letter but a few days ago from a gentleman eminent for his wisdom and ability, who states therein that the late Chancellor Kent, of New York, had told him that here was. clearly a casus omissus that there was no power, either in the House or Senate, or in a joint convention, to interfere and participate authoritatively in counting and declaring the votes and deciding upon their validity; and he said that the Chancellor added that he feared the time might come when the country would be shaken to its center on this point."

Mr. Seward and Mr. Collamer in the Senate, on the same occasion, expressed similar views, each declaring the impotency of the two Houses or any tribunal known to the law to solve the difficulty, and at the same time each rejoicing at the escape from peril which the immateriality of the vote in question had secured, but pointing out the terrible danger to which the nation would be exposed if ever a material vote in the Electoral College should be questioned.

[Here the hammer fell.]