262 



CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



such condition of hostility shall continue; and all 

 goods and chattels, wares and merchandise, coming 

 from said State or section into the other parts of the 

 United States, and all proceeding to such State or 

 section, by land or water, shall, together with the 

 vessel or vehicle conveying the same, or conveying 

 persons to and from such State or section, be forfeited 

 to the United States. 



"In short, a state of war was declared to 

 exist in that event. It will be observed that 

 that statute did not make any law for the States 

 which had attempted to secede and were in 

 arms. It named no State whatever. It was a 

 general law that when the people of a State are 

 in insurrection and claim to act under the au- 

 thority of the State, and the State authorities 

 do not repudiate it and do not stop it, then the 

 President may declare them to be in insurrec- 

 tion, and thereupon a state of war exists ; and 

 the Supreme Court of the United States, differ- 

 ing about the blockade question before that, all 

 decided that after that act was passed the state 

 of war was complete. 



" Now, Mr. President, in order to conform 

 our legislative acts to that law which we have 

 already passed and that condition of things which 

 exists, I propose to offer a substitute for this 

 resolution, which I shall presently send to the 

 desk. The President's proclamation declaring 

 certain States to be in a state of rebellion and 

 insurrection, was duly issued under the law of 

 1861, which I have just read. That is all mat- 

 ter of public record. We know what the proc- 

 lamation is. We know that it was issued ac- 

 cording to law. It declared a state of war. 

 The proclamation is before me, but I need not 

 read it. It declares under the act which I have 

 read, that certain States are in a condition of 

 war and insurrection. Has that ever been 

 changed? Have any States declared by that 

 law and proclamation to be in this condition, 

 ever altered their condition? The state of war 

 certainly still continues. 



" In view of the statement which I have made, 

 I propose in place of the resolution, which seems 

 to me obnoxious to the objections I have made, 

 to strike it all out, and also the preamble, and 

 to insert simply this : 



That the people of no State, the inhabitants where- 

 of have been declared in a state of insurrection by 

 virtue of the fifth section of the act entitled "An act 

 farther to provide for the collection of duties on im- 

 ports, and for other purposes," approved July 13, 

 1861, shall be regarded as empowered to elect elec- 

 tors of President and Vice-President of the United 

 States until said condition of insurrection shall cease 

 and be so declared by virtue of a law of the United 

 States. 



" This is not a resolution declaring any State 

 to be in this condition, and legislating for any 

 State by name, or making any distinction be- 

 tween particular States. It is simply a law in 

 pursuance of the act of 1861, declaring what 

 shall be the effect which shall follow a certain 

 condition of things into which any State may 

 fall. For tho reasons I have stated, I desire 

 that this substitute shall be adopted in lieu of 

 the resolution." 



Mr. Johnson, of Maryland, followed, saying: 

 " The question, Mr. President, is whether Con. 

 gress have any authority to legislate at all on 

 this subject. I agree with the chairman of the 

 Judiciary Committee and my friend from Ver- 

 mont that the authority exists ; and I was some- 

 what surprised to find that it was disputed by 

 gentlemen of such distinction every way, and 

 particularly in their profession, as the honora- 

 ble member from Wisconsin and the honorable 

 member from New York. The Constitution 

 of the United States does not provide in any 

 way a mode by which a contested election grow- 

 ing out of an alleged informality in voting, or 

 an alleged illegality upon the part of those who 

 voted, or an alleged incapacity on the part of 

 those voted for, is to be decided. The honor- 

 able member from Illinois is right in saying 

 that if we are governed by the mere letter of 

 the Constitution in this particular, there is no 

 power existing by which any thing more can 

 be done than to have the votes counted. He is 

 right in saying that looking to the mere letter 

 of the provision there is no authority given to 

 the President of the Senate to count the votes. 

 He is right, also, in saying that there is no pro- 

 vision in the Constitution which decides who 

 shall declare the result of the voting after 

 the votes shall have been counted. In relation 

 to all these points the Constitution is silent ; but 

 the Constitution provides that certain persons 

 shall not be voted for as President of the United 

 States. No one who is not a native-born citizen 

 of the United States, or who was not a citizen 

 at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, 

 can be voted for. Members of Congress and 

 officers under the Government cannot be se- 

 lected as electors. The States are only author- 

 ized to appoint through their Legislatures a 

 number of electors equal to their number of 

 Senators and Representatives. Now, if a per- 

 son not a native citizen of the United States, 

 or not a citizen in 1789, when the Constitution 

 was adopted, is voted for as President, or if a 

 member of Congress of either branch or an offi- 

 cer of the United States is voted for as an elec- 

 tor, or if more than the number of votes to 

 which a State is entitled is cast, there is no 

 clause in the Constitution which provides a 

 mode by which these objections may be obviated. 

 If the Vice-President is to count the vote, and 

 he is to decide the result, and is merely to de- 

 cide the result, according to the words of the 

 instrument alone, then he may declare that A B 

 is elected President of the United States, al- 

 though the whole country knows that A B was 

 not a native citizen of the United States. So 

 he may count all the votes of any one State 

 (for his functioirit is supposed is only to count), 

 he may count all the votes cast by the State of 

 New York when, in point of fact, New York 

 has cast more votes than she is authorized to 

 cast under the Constitution. 



"How are these questions to be decided? 

 As it is very clear that in the instances to which 

 I have referred and there are others there is- 



