138 



CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



the word " six." The amendment was lost 

 yeas 14, nays 29. 



Mr. Saulsbury, of Delaware, followed, say- 

 ing: "This resolution, as it exists now, is very 

 objectionable to my mind. It is for the ap- 

 pointment of a committee of the two Houses to 

 determine and to report upon, what ? The right 

 of representation of eleven States in this body. 

 What determines the rights of those States 

 to representation here? Is it the views of the 

 members of the House of Representatives ? Do 

 we stand in need of any light, however bright 

 it may be, that may come from that distinguish- 

 ed quartet- ? Are we going to ask them to illu- 

 minate us by wisdom, and to report the fact to 

 tig whether those States are entitled to repre- 

 sentation on this floor ? 



" Mr. President, on the first day of your as- 

 semblage after the battle of Manassas you and 

 they declared, by joint resolution, that the ob- 

 ject for which the war was waged was for no 

 purpose of conquest or subjugation, but it was 

 to preserve the Union of the States and to 

 maintain the rights, dignity, and equality of 

 the several States unimpaired. While that war 

 was being waged there was no action, either 

 of this House or of the House of Eepresenta- 

 tives, declaring that when it was over the ex- 

 istence of those States should be ignored or 

 their right to representation in Congress de- 

 nied. Throughout the whole contest the battle- 

 cry was " the preservation of the Union " and 

 "the Union of the States." If there was a 

 voice then raised that those States had ceased 

 to have an existence in this body, it was so 

 feeble as to be passed by and totally disre- 

 garded. 



" Sir, suppose this committee should report 

 that those States are not entitled to represen- 

 tation in this body, are you bound by their 

 action ? Is there not a higher law, the supreme 

 law of the land, which says, if they be States 

 that they shall each be entitled to two Senators 

 on this floor ? And shall a report of a joint 

 committee of the two Houses override and 

 overrule the fundamental law of the land ? Sir, 

 it is dangerous as a precedent, and I protest 

 against it as a humble member of this body. 

 It' they be not States, then the object avowed 

 for which the war was waged was false." 



Mr. Doolittle added : " I feel called upon to 

 say, in relation to this matter, that inasmuch as 

 the Senate and House of Representatives are 

 not put upon a footing of equality in the com- 

 mittee, I am constrained to vote against the 

 resolution. As my friends around me all know, 

 I have uniformly stated to them that I could 

 not vote for the resolution if they were not put 

 upon a footing of equality." 



Mr. Hendricks, of Indiana, said : " I shall 

 vote against this resolution because it refers to 

 a joint committee a subject which, according 

 to my judgment, belongs exclusively to the 

 Senate. I know that the resolution no longer 

 provides in express terms that the Senate, pend- 

 ing the continuance of the investigation of this 



committee, will not consider the question of 

 credentials from these States, but in effect it 

 amounts to that." 



Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, said : "If I under- 

 stood the resolution as the Senator from In- 

 diana does, I should certainly vote with him ; 

 but I do not so understand 'it as it has been 

 amended. That was the very objection to the 

 resolution in the form in which it came from 

 the House of Representatives, but as it has been 

 amended it is simply a resolution that a joint 

 committee be raised to inquire into the con- 

 dition of the States which formed the so-called 

 Confederate States of America, and to report 

 whether they or any of them are entitled to be 

 represented in either House of Congress, with 

 leave to report at any time by bill or otherwise. 

 It is true, as the Senator says, that after having 

 raised this committee, the Senate will not be 

 likely to take action in regard to the admission 

 of the Senators from any of these States until 

 the committee shall have had a reasonable time 

 at least to act and report ; but it is very desir- 

 able that we should have joint action upon this 

 subject. It would produce a very awkward 

 and undesirable state of things in the mind, I 

 doubt not, of the Senator from Indiana himself, 

 if the House of Representatives were to admit 

 members from one of the lately rebellious States 

 and the Senate were to refuse to receive Sen- 

 ators from the same State. 



" We all know that the State organizations in 

 certain States of the Union have been usurped 

 and overthrown. This is a fact of which we 

 must officially take notice. There was a time 

 when the Senator from Indiana, as well as my- 

 self, would not have thought of receiving a 

 Senator from the Legislature or what purported 

 to be the Legislature of South Carolina. When 

 the people of that State, by their representa- 

 tives, undertook to withdraw from the Union 

 and set up an independent government in that 

 State in hostility to the Union, when the body 

 acting as a Legislature there was avowedly act- 

 ing against this Government, neither he nor I 

 would have received representatives from it. 

 That was a usurpation which by force of arms 

 we have put down. Now the question arises, 

 has a State Government since been inaugurated 

 there entitled to representation ? Is not that a 

 fair subject of inquiry ? Ought we not to be 

 satisfied tipon that point? We do not make 

 such an inquiry in reference to members that 

 come from States which hav*e never undertaken 

 to deny their allegiance to the Government of 

 the United States. Having once been admitted 

 as States, they continue so until by some posi- 

 tive act they throw off their allegiance, and as- 

 sume an attitude of hostility to the Govern- 

 ment, and make war upon it ; and while in that 

 condition I know we should all object that they, 

 of course, could not be represented in the Con- 

 gress of the United States. Now, is it not a 

 proper subject for inquiry to ascertain whether 

 they have assumed a position iu harmony with 

 the Government ; and is it not proper that that 



