CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



181 



warrant the Congress of the United States in 

 overthrowing the pretended and professed 

 governments there and establishing one for 

 them is another thing. Our reconstruction 

 acts were based upon the fact of the rebellion, 

 upon the fact that those States had abolished 

 all the governments which were in harmony 

 with the Government of the United States; 

 that there were perfect anarchy and absence 

 of any State government in relation with the 

 Government of the United States. That was 

 my doctrine. That doctrine was sustained by 

 the decisions of the court. Congress then put 

 forth its power under the fourth article of the 

 Constitution, which provides that Congress 

 shall guarantee a republican form of govern- 

 ment, and provided by enabling acts for the 

 formation of State governments ; and in Loui- 

 siana they have had that government for years ; 

 that State is now represented in both Houses 

 of Congress. Why, sir, before you take the 

 ground that there is no government in the 

 State of Louisiana, and propose to establish 

 one for that State, you must turn out the 

 Senators and members of Congress from that 

 State. 



Mr. Kerr, of Indiana, said: "Mr. Speaker, 

 what will be the effect of the appointment of 

 this committee? Will it bring peace or jus- 

 tice to Louisiana? Will it undo the wrongs 

 her people now suffer? Will it remove the 

 Federal manacles that now enslave her ? The 

 gentleman who moved this resolution said 

 that this investigation was due to Judge Durell 

 and due to the President of the United States. 

 For their condemnation? No, sir, no. For 

 their vindication ? I think so. The purpose 

 of the investigation is to ' whitewash ' these 

 gentleman and others who have interposed by 

 their own lawless exercise of power to over- 

 throw a rightful, constitutional, and regular 

 government of a State of this Union. I am 

 opposed to any more whitewashing commit- 

 tees. I confess I have voted for a few in my 

 day in this House, but 1 propose never to do 

 so again." 



Mr. Dawes, of Massachusetts, said : " I 

 would be glad if the gentleman would answer 

 a single qiu-stion, an honest inquiry on my part. 

 What remedy does he propose for the existing 

 state of things?" 



Mr. Kurr: '-Mr. Speaker, the remedy is as 

 clear to me as the light of the sun ; and it 

 consists alone in the Federal Government 

 keeping its hands of lawless power off the peo- 

 ple of Louisiana and suffering them to go on 

 in the exercise of their own powers under their 

 constitution to reestablish order in their State. 

 That is all they need. The revolutionists in 

 Louisiana would never have dared to do what 

 they have but for the hope of countenance and 

 aid from Wnshinfrton." 



Mr. Poland, of Vermont, said : " As I look 

 at this matter, however much information we 

 may get upon this subject it will not authorize 

 ns to act at all. The gentleman from Louisi- 



ana said that we were authorized to act upon 

 this question, and that it was the duty of Con- 

 gress to act upon it in consequence of the doc- 

 trine laid down in the Supreme Court of the 

 United States in the Rhode Island case of 

 Luther ts. Borden. That was a case where 

 there were two distinct and independent State 

 governments set up in the State of Rhode 

 Island." 



Mr. Sheldon : " And that is precisely the 

 case in Louisiana to-day." 



Mr. Poland : " That is precisely where the 

 gentleman is mistaken, where the fundamental 

 error lies. There is but one constitution and 

 there is but one government in the State of Lou- 

 isiana. They all agree that the same constitu- 

 tion is hinding upon the State, and these men 

 all claim to have been elected at the very same 

 election. The point is that it is a mere ques- 

 tion of contest. as to the result of that elec- 

 tion, and if Congress is to interfere in this 

 case in Louisiana, why, whenever there is a 

 contest in any State in relation to who was 

 elected, Congress must interfere to decide that 

 question. The truth is that it is a purely 

 judicial question that is to be determined. 

 Here was an election held, and here are two 

 sets of men, both of whom claim to have re- 

 ceived a majority of votes in that election for 

 State offices. Now, is that a question for us? 

 Do gentlemen claim, does the gentleman from 

 Massachusetts (Mr. Butler) claim that that 

 is a question to be decided by this House ? 

 Not at all ; it is purely a judicial question, and 

 it is the duty of both sides to resort to the 

 judicial tribunals of the State to decide it. 

 One side has resorted to a judicial tribunal 

 and got a decision in its favor. Judge Durell 

 decided in favor of one set of claimants to the 

 office of Governor and other State offices, and 

 the President of the United States very prop- 

 erly said to them, ' You have got a judicial de- 

 cision in your favor; it is not for me to inquire 

 whether that decision was right or wrong; 

 it is the duty of the Executive to see that you 

 do not get into civil war and anarchy, and to 

 stand by the decision of the court, until some- 

 body reverses that decision or decides the 

 other way." 



Mr. Eldredge, of Wisconsin, said : " I look 

 upon the question presented to this House by 

 the resolution and this discussion as one of 

 the most important which can possibly engage 

 its attention. The interference of the Federal 

 Government with the affairs of a State, and 

 particularly with State elections, it seems to 

 me, is a matter of very great delicacy, and 

 ought not to be attempted without the clear- 

 est warrant and authority for it that can be 

 found in the Constitution. To my mind no 

 such case, no such state of affairs, no such cir- 

 cumstances have arisen as will warrant this 

 Congress in interfering with the affairs of 

 Louisiana as proposed in the resolution before 

 the House. Let us stop ; let us hesitate ; let 

 us consider. 



