22-i 



CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



YEAS Messrs. Barber, Barry, Beatty, Bigby, 

 George M. Brooks, Buckley, Buffinton. Burdett, 

 'Benjamin F. Butler, Coburn, Cotton, Creely, Dawes, 

 DeLarge, Dunnell, Elliott, Halsey, Harmer, Havens, 

 Gerry W. Hazleton, John W. Hazleton, Hill, Hoar, 

 Kelley, Killinger, Lamport, Lansing, Lowe, May- 

 nard, McKee, Mercur, Merriam, Monroe, Morey, 

 Leonard Myers, Negley, Orr, Packard, Palmer, Peck, 

 Pendleton, Perce, Aaron F. Perry, Platt, Porter, 

 Rainey, Ellis II. Roberts, Rusk, Sawyer, Scofield, 

 Seeley, Sessions, Shanks, Shellabarger, H. Board- 

 man Smith, Snyder, Sprague, Starkweather, Steven- 

 son, Stou^hton, Stowell, St. John, Taife, Twichell, 

 Tvner, Wakeman, Walden, Waldron, Wallace, 

 Walls, Wheeler, Whiteley, Jeremiah M. Wilson, 

 and John T. Wilson 74. 



NAYS Messrs. Acker, Adams, Archer, Arthur, 

 Averill, Banks, Beck, Bell, Biggs, Bingham, Bird, 

 Austin Blair, Braxton, Bright, James Brooks, Bur- 

 chard, Caldwell, Carroll, Conger, Cook, Cox, Cross- 

 land, Davis, Donnan, Box, DuBose, Duke, Eames, 

 Edwards, Eldridge, Ely, Farnsworth, Farwell, Fink- 

 elnburg, Forker, Charles Foster, Henry D. Foster, 

 Garfiefd, Garrett, Getz, Golladay, Griffith, Hale, 

 Handley, Hanks, Harper, George E. Harris, John 

 T. Harris, Hawley, Hereford, Hibbard, Holman, 

 Hooper, Kendall, Kerr, King, Kinsella, Lamison, 

 Leach, Lewis, Manson, Marshall, McClelland, Mc- 

 Cormick, Mclienry, Mclntyre, McJunkin, McKin- 

 ney, McNeely, Merrick, Benjamin F. Meyers, Mor- 

 gan, Niblack, Packer, Isaac C. Parker, Eli Perry, 

 Poland, Potter, Randall, Read, Edward Y. Rice, 

 John M. Rice, Ritchie, William R. Roberts, Shel- 

 don, Shober, Shoemaker, Slater, Slocum. Sloss, 

 John A. Smith, Stevens, Storm, Strong, Sutherland, 

 Swann, Terry. Washington Townsend, Turner, 

 Vautfhan, Waddell, Wells, Whitthorne, Willard, 

 Williams of New York, and Wood 106. 



NOT VOTING Messrs. Ambler, Ames, Barnum, 

 James G. Blair, Roderick R. Butler, Campbell, 



ton, Hay, Hays, Jvetcnum, i^yncn, mcurary, JM.C- 

 Grew, Mitchell, Moore, Morphis, Hosea W. Parker, 

 Peters, Price, Prindle, Robinson, Rogers, Roosevelt, 

 Sherwood, Worthington C. Smith, R. Milton Speer, 

 Thomas J. Speer, Sypher, Thomas, D wight Town- 

 send, Tuthill, Upson, Van Trump, Voorhees, War- 

 ren, Washburn, Williams of Indiana, Winchester, 

 and Young 50. 



So the report of the committee of conference 

 was rejected. 



In the Senate, on April 18th, the report of 

 the conference committee was considered. 



Mr. Davis, of Kentucky, said : " The amend- 

 ment offered by my honorable friend from 

 Ohio (Mr. Sherman) authorizes any person 

 whose house is burned by a riotous assem- 

 blage in any county, city, or parish, to insti- 

 tute a suit against that municipal corporation 

 and to recover the value of the property, and 

 after there -has been a judgment against the 

 corporation, and it has paid the amount of the 

 judgment, this bill then authorizes the corpo- 

 ration to sue the wrong-doer. "Where is the 

 warrant in the Constitution that authorizes 

 Congress to pass a law to empower any State 

 corporation whatever to bring a suit for an 

 injury done to that corporation ? There are 

 sundry very able and learned constitutional 

 lawyers who advocate this bill, and among 

 them the very astute and learned lawyer who 

 has it in his management. I ask him to inform 

 me and the Senate where there is any warrant 



in the Constitution of the United States which 

 authorizes Congress to pass a law allowing a 

 State municipal corporation to maintain a suit 

 for a wrong directly or indirectly done to that 

 municipal corporation. 



u I will proceed a step further. This bill 

 makes it a penal offence against the United 

 States for a combination of persons to violate 

 a penal law of a State. Take the State of Ken- 

 tucky or any other State ; it has its penal laws ; 

 if they are violated, here is a provision of this 

 bill which makes the violation by the people 

 of a State of a State penal law a criminal of- 

 fence against the United States. I ask the 

 honorable Senator where does he derive the 

 power for Congress to pass a law making a vio- 

 lation of a State penal law an offence against 

 the United States ? I say it is a solecism." 



Mr. Sherman, of Ohio, said: "I ask my 

 friend from Kentucky where is the authority 

 in the Constitution of the United States for 

 any municipal corporation or any other kind 

 of a corporation to sue or be sued in the courts 

 of the United States, and yet it is done every 

 day?" 



Mr. Davis, of Kentucky : " That is a very 

 different matter, if my honorable friend will 

 allow me to make the suggestion. It is an ab- 

 surdity, it is a perfect solecism for one govern- 

 ment to pass laws to enforce the criminal laws 

 of another government. Suppose Congress 

 should pass a law making it penal for any citi- 

 zen of the United States to cross into her ma- 

 jesty's dominions on this continent and violate 

 the penal law of the land, would not the idea 

 of Congress passing a law thus to enforce the 

 penal laws, and to punish the infraction of 

 the penal laws of the British provinces in 

 America, strike everybody as supremely ab- 

 surd ? It is only less absurd for Congress to 

 pass laws to make the violation of a penal 

 State law a criminal offence against the United 

 States, and for it to be punished in the courts 

 of the United States. But, Mr. President, I 

 will go a step further in this line of thought. 

 The Constitution provides that 



The United States shall guarantee to every State 

 in this Union a republican form of government, and 

 shall protect each of them against invasion, and on 

 application of the Legislature, or of the Executive 

 (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against 

 domestic violence. 



"Here is a precedent condition expressed 

 in plain and explicit language upon which the 

 Government of the United States shall inter- 

 pose in the affairs of a State, and that pre- 

 cedent condition is, that the Government of 

 the United States shall be first applied to by 

 the Legislature of a State in which there js 

 domestic violence, if the Legislature be in 

 session, and, if it be not in session, that the 

 Executive or Governor of the State shall make 

 the application." 



Mr. Edmunds, of Vermont, said : " I ask the 

 Senator whether he finds any such limitation 

 upon the power of Congress and the President 



