CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



237 



District of Columbia to take and file with the provost 

 marshal of said District an oath of allegiance or fideli- 

 ty to the Government of the United States similar to 

 the oath required by law of Members and Senators in 

 Congress and other officers of the Government ; and 

 also the expediency and propriety of prohibiting all 

 persons from doing business in said District or with 

 the several Departments of the Government who have 

 not or may not take and file such oath ; and that said 

 committee have leave to report by bill or otherwise. 



Mr. Sumner, of Massachusetts, said : " I wish 

 to thank the Senator from Iowa for introducing 

 this proposition, and at the same time to cafi 

 the attention of the Senate to a bill which is on 

 their calendar, which I had the honor of intro- 

 ducing at the last session, but which, for some 

 unaccountable reason unknown to me, has been 

 reported upon adversely by the Committee on 

 the Judiciary, requiring that same oath to be 

 taken by the practitioners in the courts of the 

 United States. I am told that there are lawyers 

 in the city of Washington who decline to prac- 

 tise in the courts here because they are unwill- 

 ing to take the oath which you, sir, have taken, 

 and which the Chief Justice of the United States 

 only the other day took before he entered upon 

 his functions ; and yet these same lawyers flaunt 

 in the Supreme Court of the United States. 

 That ought to be stopped ; and I give notice 

 therefore that, carrying out the spirit of the 

 resolution of the Senator from Iowa, I shall ask 

 the attention of the Senate as soon as possible 

 to that bill." 



Mr. Saulsbury, of Delaware, followed in op- 

 position, saying : " It is not my intention to dis- 

 cuss at any length this resolution, but simply to 

 ask for the yeas and nays on its adoption. I 

 would take that oath myself very willingly, al- 

 though I believe, as far as relates to members 

 of Congress, it is wholly unconstitutional. I do 

 not object to it, as far as it could relate to my- 

 self, because of any thing other than its uncon- 

 stitutionally contained in it ; but I regard it, if 

 it should pass, as one of those acts of unneces- 

 sary oppression on the part of the Government 

 which in times like these ought to be avoided. 

 Is there any evidence before this Senate that 

 the old inhabitants of this city, those of them 

 who are living here, have given any trouble to 

 this Government, or even to this Administra- 

 tion?" 



"Mr. Harlan, of Iowa, in reply, said: "This is 

 a resolution instructing the committee to make 

 an inquiry on this subject. It is barely possi- 

 ble that the committee might report adversely 

 to any legislation. I am frank to state, how- 

 ever, that I think some such legislation is ne- 

 cessary, and ought to be had. I did not sup- 

 pose a resolution of this kind would implicate 

 any member of this body. It is not intended 

 to require opponents of the Administration per 

 se to take an oath of fidelity to the Admin- 

 istration as a political organization, but an 

 oath of fidelity to the Government itself 

 during the existence of a gigantic rebellion. 

 "While, then, I maintain that in my opinion 

 some such legislation may be necessary, and 



I desire the inquiry to he made by one of the 

 standing committees of this body, I do not think 

 it can be properly denominated a measure of 

 persecution against political opponents of the 

 party in power ; and I think the Senator does 

 himself and his political friends gross injustice 

 in throwing out such an intimation. He sure- 

 ly does not desire the mass of the people of this 

 country to understand that he and his political 

 associates are opponents of the Government of 

 the United States and are hi sympathy and al- 

 liance with the rebels." 



Mr. Saulsbury, in reply, said : " Sir, those who 

 choose to regard me and my political associates 

 as in sympathy with the rebellion are welcome 

 to the indulgence of their very charitable opin- 

 ion. I shall do naught, as a member of this 

 body or in private life, to remove any snch sus- 

 picion from their minds. I know very well the 

 distinction between the Government of the 

 United States and the Administration at the 

 present time. I know they are asunder as far 

 as the poles ; that they approach each other no 

 nearer than heaven and earth approach each 

 other ; but I know the doctrine attempted to be 

 inculcated at the present day by a large number 

 of people in this country and by a very influ- 

 ential press, and that is, that the Government 

 is the Administration, and the Administration 

 is the Government. I see no objection on all 

 proper occasions to anyjnan and every man in 

 the United States taking an oath to support the 

 Government of the United States and the Con- 

 stitution of the United States. But, sir, the 

 honorable Senator does not live in the section 

 that some of us do. He has not seen the prog- 

 ress that these measures have made. He has 

 not heard it announced, perhaps, as we have, 

 that it is traitorous to oppose the actions of the 

 Administration in times like these. He has not 

 heard voters at the polls questioned in reference 

 to their fidelity to an Administration, not their 

 fidelity to a Government or to a Constitution. 

 Sir, had the honorable Senator lived in the sec- 

 tion from which I come, had he lived in what 

 was once the glorious and gallant State of Mary- 

 land if the Senator from Maryland (Mr. John- 

 son) will pardon me which is now the province 

 of Maryland, under the acts of this Administra- 

 tion, he would have seen how the very incep- 

 tion of such measures as this worked injury, 

 and how in their progress they work harder." 



Mr. Hendricks, of Indiana, followed, saying: 

 " I am opposed to a resolution that contemplate* 

 the increase of oaths in this country. Why 

 does the Senator intimate by his resolution that 

 it is necessary to pass a law to require the peo- 

 ple to take an oath of this sort? Have these 

 oaths been required of the people without au- 

 thority of law all over the country? It has 

 been done in Indiana, in Kentucky, and, I ven- 

 ture to say, in the Senator's own State, without 

 authority of law. Then does the Senator by 

 this inquiry intend to be understood as saying 

 that the Administration has pursued a course 

 not authorized by law in this respect? Very 



