CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



265 



The amendment of the honorable Senator from 

 Vermont, on the other hand, proposes to take 

 the question in blank, and to declare that all 

 the States which were proclaimed to be in a 

 state of insurrection by the President ought not 

 to vote until that insurrection has been de- 

 clared by law to be suppressed. I am opposed 

 to that amendment for divers reasons, and I 

 think if wo come to examine this question fairly 

 we shall see that any action of ours intended to 

 prevent Louisiana, for instance, and Arkansas 

 from voting, will be perhaps a breach of faith 

 on the part'of this Government, and a violation 

 of that courtesy which is due from one depart- 

 ment of it to another. 



" Sir, what are the facts ? It is said that by 

 the act of July 13, 1861, these States are cut out 

 from the Union and debarred from all their 

 privileges as States, political as well as others. 

 I do not so read the act of July 13, 1861 ; nor 

 do I conceive that that was its purpose, be- 

 cause in endeavoring to get at a fair construc- 

 tion of a law, it is always necessary to ascertain 

 what was the purpose of the lawgiver. I ap- 

 prehend, so far from its being the purpose of 

 that law to put these States out of the Union, 

 it was its intention to keep them in ; that is, it 

 was intended to be a means to keep them in, 

 although for the purpose of better achieving 

 that end all commercial intercourse was cut off 

 with them, but not political intercourse. They 

 were not deprived of any of their' rights as 

 States, or from exercising any of the functions 

 of States, provided they were able to do so in 

 due time. 



" In pursuance of that act of Congress, the 

 President, by his proclamation of August 16, 

 1861, declared Louisiana in a state of insurrec- 

 tion. By the proclamation of January 1, 1863, 

 he exempted thirteen parishes of the State from 

 the operation of the emancipation proclamation. 

 Why ? Because he says in that proclamation 

 that the rebellion does not exist in those thir- 

 teen parishes ; that that condition of things 

 upon which he was allowed before that time to 

 issue his proclamation did not exist in those 

 parishes, and therefore he exempted them. We 

 recognized the validity of that proclamation, I 

 believe; at least we have always treated it 

 with that respect which is due to the act of 

 another department of this Government when 

 it is not grossly in violation of law or of the 

 Constitution. By the proclamation, however, 

 of the 8th of December, 1863, the President 

 invited the people of Louisiana and of all the 

 other States to resume their State rights and 

 State functions, provided one-tenth of them 

 would agree to make the proper organization. 



"Now, as I understand the question here, it 

 is simply this : in pursuance of that invitation 

 extended by the President, and upon the foot- 

 ing of his proclamation declaring that those 

 rights should be restored to them, and that 

 they would be protected in the exercise of 

 them, the people of Louisiana, in numbers suf- 

 ficient to bring them within his terms, have 



organized a State government, and have it now 

 actually in operation in the State of Louisiana. 

 The question simply is, whether we will carry 

 out that arrangement of the President in good 

 faith, or whether we will violate it ; and that 

 is the question which presents itself distinctly 

 upon the propositions now before this body. 

 The President has invited a number of the people 

 of these States which have been oppressed with 

 the rebellion to go to work to reorganize their 

 State governments, and has promised that he 

 will extend, and this Government will extend, 

 to them the protection guaranteed by the Con- 

 stitution ; and he goes so far as to state that 

 phrase of the Constitution in hcec terba. Will 

 we stand by it? That is the question. Will 

 we carry it out in good faith ? If we are will- 

 ing to do so, then there is no difficulty; and 

 this one-tenth of the people, or whatever the 

 number may be, will become for this occasion 

 the State of Louisiana, and the State of Arkan- 

 sas, or any other State that sees fit to accept 

 those conditions. 



Mr. Davis, of Kentucky, said : " The question 

 now is, whether the two Houses in their legisla- 

 tive capacity may lay down certain principles 

 and regulations to prevent disorder and confu- 

 sion in the act of counting the presidential 

 votes ? I think they may. 



" Where the Constitution directs an act to be 

 done, it invests all needful power to enable that 

 act to be conveniently done. As I understand 

 the Constitution, the power to count the votes 

 is vested in the t\vo Houses of Congress. That 

 is a powep to be executed under the Constitu- 

 tion. A general provision of the Constitution 

 provides that Congress may pass all laws ne- 

 cessary and proper to carry into execution any 

 power vested by the Constitution in the Gov- 

 ernment of the United States or in any of the 

 departments or officers thereof. This power to 

 count the presidential votes is certainly vested 

 by the Constitution somewhere. It is vested in 

 the two Houses. The manner in which the 

 count shall be made is not prescribed by the 

 Constitution. Then comes in the general 

 power given to Congress to pass all laws neces- 

 sary and proper to execute any of the powers 

 vested by the Constitution in the Government 

 or in any department or officer thereof. 



"I understand that that incidental power is 

 simply proposed to be executed by this joint 

 resolution in declaring certain principles and 

 forms by which the count shall be made. This 

 count is to be made in subordination to the 

 Constitution. The Constitution declares that 

 no man shall be eligible to the office of Presi- 

 dent unless he be a native-born citizen or a 

 citizen of the United States at the adoption of 

 the Constitution. Suppose the State of Louisi- 

 ana had voted for a man who did not come up 

 to that qualification, who was not a native cit- 

 izen of the United States, or who had not re- 

 sided in the United States at the time of the 

 adoption of the Constitution, would it not be 

 the duty of the two Houses, in counting the 



