CONGRESS, U. S. 



231 



when they adopted it, what kind of oath they 

 would require ; and if they required an oath 

 binding only to present and future obedience, 

 I should like to see any reason upon which the 

 authority can be placed, that Congress can 

 require an oath more than coextensive, incon- 

 sistent with that oath of office." 



Mr. Sumner, of Massachusetts, on the 25th 

 of January, in reply, said : " There is a time 

 for all things ; but there are times when certain 

 things are out of place, and this principle is 

 especially applicable to the present debate. 

 The question is on the adoption of a rule of the 

 Senate to carry out an existing statute. It is 

 not on the passage of the statute or on its pro- 

 posed repeal, buf it is simply on its recognition 

 as an existing statute, and the enforcement of 

 its plain requirement. Considering the sim- 

 plicity of the question, we may well be aston- 

 ished at much that has been intruded into this 

 debate. 



"The Senate is a branch of the legislative 

 power, in conjunction with the House of Rep- 

 resentatives and the President. Neither of 

 these branches alone, can make a law or un- 

 make a law. The concurrence of all three is 

 essential to a valid act of legislation. And as 

 it takes all three to make a law, so it takes all 

 three to unmake a law. So long as the law 

 exists, there is no difference between the obli- 

 gations of the Senate and the obligations of the 

 humblest citizen except, perhaps, that the 

 Senate, which helped to make the law, is bound 

 to set an example of obedience beyond any 

 citizen. 



" Therefore I put aside as entirely irrelevant 

 much that we have heard against the proposed 

 rule. This is not the time to say that the oath 

 is unconstitutional, or that it is ex post facto, 

 These are considerations properly arising on the 

 passage of the statute, or on a proposition for 

 its repeal. The Senator from Delaware (Mr. 

 Bayard) and the Senator from Maryland (Mr. 

 Johnson), who have argued these topics so ex- 

 haustively, were either too late or too early. 

 The statute is already the law of the land, and 

 there is no new bill introduced for its repeal. 



" Putting aside the irrelevant matter which 

 has been introduced, and presenting the single 

 point in issue, the question becomes too plain 

 for argument. It is simply this : Will the Sen- 

 ate obey an existing statute ? And this question 

 opens another: "What is the meaning of the 

 statute ? 



" That the Senate will openly refuse obedience 

 to an existing statute, recently enacted in sup- 

 port of loyalty, is not to be supposed without 

 an impeachment of the loyalty of the Senate. 

 It is only because the question of obedience has 

 been complicated with other questions, that 

 there has been for a moment any doubt on this 

 head. Clearly, the Senate will not disobey an 

 existing statute. It is then on the statute alone, 

 and nothing else, that any question can arise. 



" And here I ask leave to recall the Senate 

 from the learned commentary and elaborate 



diversion of the Senator from Delaware. The 

 actual question is one which may be treated 

 without learning and without effort. It arises 

 on the following words of the statute: 



Hereafter every person elected or appointed to any 

 office of honor or profit under the Government of the 

 Cnited States, iithtr in the ciril, military, or naval 

 department* of the public service, excepting the Presi- 

 dent of theUuited States, shall, before entering upom 

 the duties of such ojfice, and before being entitled to 

 any of the salary or other emoluments thereof, take 

 and subscribe the following oath or affirmation 

 [here follows the oath] ; which said oath, so taken 

 and signed, shall be preserved among the files of the 

 Court, House of Congress, or Department to which 

 the said office may appertain 12 Statute* at Large, 

 p. 502. 



" It will be observed here, that the language 

 is plain rather than technical. Every person 

 ' elected ' or ' appointed ' to any ' office ' in the 

 t citil, military, or naval department of the 

 public service,' must take the oath. What 

 words could be broader than ' departments ' 

 and ' public service ? ' 



" Obviously, and beyond all question, a Sen- 

 ator is ' elected.' Therefore on this point there 

 is no question. 



" The inquiry recurs, is a Senator an 'officer' 

 in the ' civU department of the public service? ' 



''Is he an 'officer ? ' 



" Is he in the ' civil department ? ' 



" It seems absurd to raise these questions, but 

 I have not raised them. This has been done 

 by others. You might as well raise the ques- 

 tions, if a man is a creature, and belongs to 

 the human family. 



" But let us look at these questions in their 

 order. 



"1. Is a Senator an 'officer?' Here please 

 to look at the dictionary. I turn to Webster : 

 ^ " OFFICE. ' Offices are civil, judicial, ministe- 

 rial, executive, legislative, political, municipal, 

 diplomatic, military, ecclesiastical' &c. Web- 

 ster. 



"Thus, plainly offices are legislative. But 

 why summon the dictionary ? And yet the zeal 

 of the other side seems to leave me no alterna- 

 tive. 



" Not content with the dictionary, I call your 

 attention to the use of the word in other au- 

 thoritative places, and pardon me if I begin 

 with the constitution of Massachusetts, written 

 originally by John Adams. 



"In the bill of rights of the constitution of 

 Massachusetts, section five, it is declared : 



All power residing originally in the people and 

 being derived from them, the several magistrates and 

 officers of government, whether hqi-slatii-e, executive, 

 or judicial, are their substitutes and agents, and are 

 at all times accountable to them. 



" Here are members of the Legislature classed 

 among officers, and thus this word received its 

 interpretation. 



"In another part of this same constitution it 

 is provided: 



Any person chosen Governor or Lieutenant-GoT 

 ernor, Counsellor, Senat-or, or Bepretentatice, and ac- 

 cepting the trust, shall, before he proceed to execute 



