CONGRESS, U. S. 



227 



jc.-ity was obtained by those whom they had 

 ..eft here, and by the places which were filled 

 by the people, those men were expelled from 

 the body. 



"' The next question is, how are they to be 

 kept out? It is clear, sir it is not nec>. 

 that I should take Tip your time in proving 

 that if the interests of this Government are 

 to be put into the keeping of men who avow 

 their enmity to its existence, and who boldly 

 plot its destruction, it is utterly impossible that 

 that Government can long exist. If men of 

 that character and men of that conduct can 

 have seats and retain seats here, then there is 

 an end of this Government. If the Constitu- 

 tion is so framed that it is subject to this in- 

 firmity incurably, it is an abortion, it is a total 

 failure ; and if any construction can be given 

 to this Constitution which, in practical appli- 

 cation, can produce this effect, it is as much a 

 destruction of this Government as secession is. 



" Such was our condition, and such were the 

 demands upon us. It became necessary to in- 

 quire what was the mode of correction. It 

 was quite evident that the taking of an oath to 

 support the Constitution did not amount to 

 any correction. All those men had that oath 

 on them, and it furnished no sufficient security. 

 The Constitution provided that a man should 

 have certain qualifications in order to be ad- 

 mitted as a Senator ; that he should be thirty 

 years of age, a citizen of the United States for 

 nine years, and a resident of the State electing 

 him. If no other qualifications or disqualifi- 

 cations could by any possibility be framed and 

 constitutionally executed, then those men were 

 entitled to have their seats here if they could 

 but get here, and, if entitled to take them, en- 

 titled to keep them. The question then re- 

 turned directly on the mind is, is it true that 

 such is the Constitution of this Government 

 that you can have no other qualifications or 

 disqualifications than those mentioned in the 

 Constitution ? If you have no others, then 

 clearly it was subject to the infirmity of which 

 I have spoken." 



Mr. Hendricks, of Indiana, in reply said: 

 "Whoever comes here, being duly elected, and 

 having the qualifications prescribed by the 

 Constitution, has a right to his seat, and his 

 State may well demand it for him. The right 

 of his State to be represented by him is con- 

 ferred by the Constitution, and cannot be de 

 nied or unpaired by any rule of this body or 

 by any act of Congress. I will not stop to in- 

 quire whether the language of the act, consid- 

 ered in the light of established rules of construc- 

 tion and of adjudged cases, includes Senators 

 and Representatives ; but will maintain that if 

 construed to include them, it is so far in con- 

 flict with the Constitution, and null and void. 

 N"or will I stop to question that terms may be 

 added to the oath of obedience to the Consti- 

 tution required of all officers, but such addi- 

 tional terms cannot add to or take from the 

 qualifications prescribed by the Constitution. 



The Constitution provides that 'no person 

 shall be a Senator who shall not have attained 

 the age of thirty years, and been nine years a 

 citizen of the United States, and who shall not, 

 when elected, be an inhabitant of that State 

 for which he shall be chosen.' A person not 

 thirty years of age, or who has not been nine 

 years a citizen, or who is not an inhabitant of 

 the State for which he is chosen, is not quali- 

 fied to be a Senator, but all other persons are 

 qualified, and there is no power in the Gov- 

 ernment to disqualify or render them ineligi- 

 ble. By declaring these three circumstances 

 of disqualification, touching the age, citizen- 

 ship, and residence of the party, the Constitu- 

 tion excludes every other disqualification. The 

 rule of construction is well stated by Story in 

 his work on the Constitution. He says : 



It would seem but fair reasoning, upon the plain- 

 est principles of interpretation, that when the Con- 

 stitution established certain qualifications as neces- 

 sarv for office, it meant to exclude all others as pre- 

 requisites. From the very nature of such a provi- 

 sion, the affirmation of these qualifications would 

 seem to imply a negative of all others. * * * A 

 power to add new qualifications is certainly equiva- 

 lent to a power to vary them. 



" The Senator from Illinois (Mr. TrumbuU) 

 cited the oath required of United States judges 

 by the judiciary act of 1789, and claimed it as 

 a conclusive precedent and authority upon the 

 question. With great deference to that gen- 

 tleman, both because of his conceded ability 

 as a jurist, and because of his position in thia 

 body at the head of the Judiciary Committee, 

 I cannot admit that he has found either a pre- 

 cedent or an authority for the measure he now 

 advocates. It is true that the Constitution re- 

 quires the judges to take an oath of obedience 

 to it ; and it is also true that the act of 1789 

 adds terms to that oath; but has it escaped 

 the attention of the Senator that the oath of 

 office required of the judges is in no respect 

 retrospective, but is altogether prospective, 

 and looks only to a faithful discharge of the 

 duties of their high office ? By the terms of 

 that oath no qualifications are superadded to 

 the qualifications prescribed by the Constitu- 

 tion, and no persons are by it excluded from 

 the bench who are eligible under the Consti- 

 tution. When a judge of the United States 

 courts swears that he will obey the Constitu- 

 tion, and ' will administer justice without re- 

 spect to persons, and do equal right to the 

 poor and the rich, and impartially discharge 

 and perform all the duties incumbent upon 

 him,' he gives a solemn assurance of official 

 fidelity in the future, but he looks not over his 

 past life ; nor is he required to forswear either 

 follies, faults, or crimes. He is not denied the 

 office because he cannot swear that he is with- 

 out fault in respect to the law, the Constitu- 

 tion, or, it may be, his allegiance. 



" But, sir, the measure now before the Sen- 

 ate is almost if not altogether otherwise. 1C 

 is not prospective, nor does it seek to secure 

 fidelity in office ; but for the most part is re- 



