302 



CONGRESS, U. S. 



" Among the qualifications prescribed by the 

 Constitution you can find no ground for inter- 

 posing an objection to a party being sworn in 

 who is properly appointed, no matter how de- 

 based his moral character may be, no matter 

 though he lie under the stigma of an indict- 

 ment and conviction for crime. Your remedy 

 is not by rejecting him, if the proper authority 

 of his State chooses to appoint him, because 

 that power is not vested in the majority of this 

 body ; but you are protected, as I will show 

 you, by a subsequent clause, from anything of 

 that kind. The question is left to the appoint- 

 ing power in the State as regards a Senator or 

 Representative, the people or the people's 

 agents in the State, to determine whether or 

 not the individual is fit morally to represent 

 them ; and I suppose loyalty comes under the 

 designation of moral character as well as under 

 anything else. Even if there were a convic- 

 tion for crime, forgery if you please, it would 

 afford no ground, it would give no warrant to 

 the Senate of the United States in rejecting by 

 a majority a person who presented himself as a 

 Senator, legally appointed by the proper au- 

 thority in his own State. The Constitution 

 prescribes the qualifications, and it has not 

 touched any question of that kind relating to 

 the capacity or the morality of the party. If he 

 was an idiot you could not reject him. If he 

 was a man destitute of all moral character, such 

 that you would feel disgraced by associating 

 with him, you could not by a majority of this 

 body reject him when his State chose to send 

 him here by the properly constituted authority. 

 You have some authority over the subject, to 

 be sure, as I admit ; but you are violating the 

 Constitution if, under the power which is given 

 to you to decide by a majority on the returns 

 and qualifications of a member, you undertake 

 to usurp the power of adding qualifications 

 which the Constitution has not prescribed. 

 _ " I submit, therefore, that Mr. Stark has a 

 right to be sworn in. I speak now utterly ir- 

 respective of any opinion of what these papers 

 may prima facie establish, or what would be 

 the result of an investigation, or whether the 

 facts stated (for they are mere declarations, 

 not acts) would be sufficient for action in an- 

 other form or not. All that is beside the ques- 

 tion. There is no prescription by which you 

 can make so indefinite a term as loyalty a qual- 

 ification under the Constitution, which you 

 have a right by a majority to decide is a quali- 

 fication for a member." 



Mr. Sumner, of Massachusetts^ rose in oppo- 

 sition. He said : " If I understood the argu- 

 ment of the Senator, it was that the question 

 of loyalty did not enter, under the Constitution 

 of the United States, into the qualifications of 

 a Senator, and that therefore at this moment 

 on this threshold of the discussion the Senate 

 was not in condition to entertain the question 

 of loyalty raised with reference to the present 

 applicant for a seat in this body. To that I 

 have two precise answers: one of reason, and 



one of precedent. The first answer that I sub- 

 mit to the candor of the honorable Senator is 

 one of reason. 



" The Senator says the Senate should not at 

 this time consider the loyalty of an applicant 

 for an office here, for the reason that under the 

 Constitution loyalty is not a qualification. Sir, 

 why is an applicant that comes to this body to 

 take a seat to go to your chair and take an 

 oath to support the Constitution of the United 

 States, if it is not to give the most open testi- 

 mony before the country, and before God, of 

 his loyalty to the Union and to the Constitu- 

 tion ? And yet, sir, the Senator tells us, in the 

 face of evidence now lying on that table, lead- 

 ing us to doubt the loyalty of the applicant, 

 leading us to doubt the very oath which he is 

 to take, we cannot go into every consideration 

 of the question of loyalty ; that in short, the 

 loyalty of a Senator under the Constitution of 

 the United States is no part of his qualifica- 

 tions. I believe I do not do injustice to the 

 argument of the Senator, and I believe I an- 

 swer it on grounds of reason completely. 



" And now, sir, I answer in the second place 

 on grounds of precedent." The precedent 

 urged by Mr. Sumner was that of Philip Barton 

 Key in 1808, in the House of Representatives. 

 He was charged with being a pensioner of the 

 British Government. 



Mr. Bayard, of Delaware, in reply, set aside 

 the force of the precedent by saying : " The 

 House made no decision that the ground of 

 loyalty was necessary to the qualification of the 

 party." He thus replied to the question of 

 loyalty : " The question of loyalty is too in- 

 determinate in itself. It rests in opinion. 

 What one man may say is disloyal, another 

 may not think disloyal. It may be that many 

 members of the Senate now may think it would 

 be disloyal to believe that it would be wiser 

 and better for this country, if they could, to 

 adjust amicably by national convention, or in 

 any other mode, the existing differences, than 

 to carry on the war. Is that disloyalty ? Is a 

 man disloyal because he entertains the opinion 

 that the interests of his whole country, North 

 and South, would be benefited by one course 

 of things ? Again, there are others who think, 

 because the Administration is in power during 

 war, that any opposition to the course and 

 policy of that Administration would be dis- 

 loyal. Many men would think so honestly. 

 Others would say, no ; it is no evidence of dis- 

 loyalty at all. What definition, then, can there 

 be put to the term to make it a qualification 

 of a party for a seat in the Senate of the United 

 States in the face of the Constitution of the 

 United States ? There is no certainty about 

 it. It depends and rests upon opinion alto- 

 gether ; and that opinion may be as variable as 

 it can be. Nay, sir, there is, as we all know, 

 a difference in this body, as well as in the other 

 House, as to the mode and policy on which this 

 war should be carried on. Some tell us it 

 ought to be carried on for the purpose of ex- 



