228 



CONGRESS, TJ. S. 



trospective, and seeks to exclude from seats in 

 this Chamber persons who are not excluded by 

 the Constitution, and to establish disaualifica- 

 tions unknown to that instrument. 



" It cannot be said that the proposed rule re- 

 quires an oath but does not prescribe a qualifi- 

 cation, for, if the oath be required, an entire 

 class is excluded ; as effectually excluded as if 

 the cause were interpolated among the dis- 

 qualifications prescribed in the Constitution. 

 Could this body by a rule, or Congress by a 

 law, require Senators before taking their seats 

 to take an oath that they were over forty years 

 of age, or that they have been twenty-one 

 years citizens of the United States ? All will 

 agree that it could not be done. And why 

 not, sir ? For the obvious reason that it would 

 be going beyond the constitutional disqualifi- 

 cations, and attempting to exclude classes not 

 excluded by that instrument. 



" The measure before the Senate is proposed 

 by the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Sum- 

 ncr). Will that Senator allow me to remind 

 him that when he took his seat in this body, 

 twelve years ago, Senators of his political 

 views were in a small minority; that both 

 branches of Congress were controlled by men 

 who, standing upon the adjudications of every 

 department of the Government, believed that 

 the Constitution not only allowed but required 

 legislation on the part of Congress securing 

 the return of fugitive slaves; and that good 

 faith, as well as the harmony of the sections 

 and the unity of the Republic, required that 

 the laws enacted for that purpose should be 

 faithfully executed. As I understand, that Sen- 

 ator came with avowed convictions adverse to 

 the constitutional power of Congress to enact 

 laws upon that subject, and disclaiming all ob- 

 ligation on the part of the citizen to aid in 

 their enforcement. Now, sir, had Congress by 

 law, or the Senate by a rule, required that Sen- 

 ator, before taking his seat, by solemn oath or 

 affirmation to declare that in the past he had 

 given no countenance, counsel, or encourage- 

 ment to persons engaged in resisting the exe- 

 cution of the fugitive slave laws, and that in 

 the future he would be loyal to their require- 

 ments and obligations, what course would the 

 honorable Senator then have felt it his duty to 

 pursue? If animated by the lofty sentiments 

 of the great men his State has produced, he 

 would have returned to her and at her feet 

 laid down the commission she had put into his 

 hands, and the robes of office she had placed 

 upon his shoulders, and made report to her 

 that he had been denied his seat in a ' Senate 

 of equals ; ' that terms had been required of 

 him unknown to the Constitution ; and that it 

 was for the ancient Commonwealth to main- 

 tain her Federal rights and equality, and to 

 vindicate her wounded honor. To resist the 

 laws of the United States in South Carolina is 

 a grievous crime ; but, sir, is it any less a crime 

 in Massachusetts ? The act in either State dis- 

 turbs the foundations of public authority; and, 



upon principle, as well may test oaths and sol 

 emn disclaimers of crime be required of Sen 

 ators from the one State as from the other. As 

 a question of constitutional right, he who comes 

 here, being duly chosen by a sovereign State, 

 and having the constitutional qualifications, is 

 entitled to demand his seat, and to deny it is to 

 break the Federal compact. 



" The proposition before the Senate, Mr. Pres- 

 ident, involves other and quite as important 

 considerations. It reaches to questions in- 

 volved in the reorganization and reconstruc- 

 tion of the Federal Union. This war cannot 

 continue forever. The time will come when it 

 shall have ceased to agitate the world, leaving, 

 it may be, scenes of desolation to mar the face 

 of our country; society distracted; and, scat- 

 ered upon every side, the broken ' columns 

 and arches ' of our institutions. Then will 

 arise the questions that appertain to a state 

 and condition of peace. To restore and rees- 

 tablish will then be the duty of the statesman. 

 Is it not well now, sir, to anticipate that con- 

 dition of our affairs, and to avoid that which 

 may render the duty and labor of reconstruc- 

 tion more difficult ?" 



Mr. Johnson, of Maryland, followed in op- 

 position. He said: "Mr. President, the reso- 

 lution upon your table, as I understand it, of- 

 fers for the consideration of the Senate three 

 questions. The first is, whether the act of 

 July 2d, 1862, requiring an oath to be taken 

 by certain officers of the Government, includes 

 Senators. The second is, if it does include 

 Senators, whether to that extent it is constitu- 

 tional. The third is, whether, if it has not 

 operation by its own force but is to become 

 operative only by the Senate's adopting the 

 rule which forms the subject of the resolution 

 upon your table, it is expedient to adopt it. 



"Does that act embrace the case of a Sen- 

 ator? Now, if there be any principle estab- 

 lished as a principle of sound constitutional 

 law, without which the Government cannot 

 progress satisfactorily, beneficially, it is that 

 these questions, when they arise, or any ques- 

 tions of constitutional law when they have 

 arisen and have been decided, and the decision 

 has been acquiesced in by every department of 

 the Government, are to be considered as finally 

 decided. I do not mean, Mr. President, that 

 it is upon the ground that such a decision has 

 the authority of a judicial judgment, binding 

 as authority upon all succeeding judicial func- 

 tionaries ; but I mean to say that the law of 

 expediency, the law of propriety, the law of 

 safety, looking to the wholesome administra- 

 tion of the Government, demands that when 

 questions of that sort have been so decided, 

 and for years acquiesced in, they should be 

 considered as settled. In the case of Blount 

 (I shall not occupy the time of the Senate by 

 taking up the book) the very question was pre- 

 sented, is a Senator of the United States an of' 

 ficer within the meaning of that clause of the 

 Constitution of the United States which pro- 



