CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



211 



Louisiana hostile to the government of the State, 

 and intent on overturning such government by 

 force. 



" If the attempt to organize this House yes- 

 terday is a part of a conspiracy to overturn the 

 State government of Louisiana, to again cover 

 the streets of New Orleans with blood and 

 with dead bodies, to continue the murders and 

 the massacres which have prevailed in that 

 State for months. and for years past, and what 

 the President has done has been in the interest 

 of humanity and to preserve the public peace 

 and to prevent a consummation of this con- 

 spiracy; if these are the facts, let the Presi- 

 dent-fell the whole story. We do not want 

 it by piecemeal." 



Mr. Saulsbury, of Delaware, said: "Mr. 

 President, the resolution offered by the Sen- 

 ator from Ohio, I presume, is predicated upon 

 the information which is contained in the pub- 

 lic press of the country that there was yester- 

 day in the city of New Orleans military inter- 

 ference with the organization of the Legislature 

 of Louisiana. That information has been com- 

 municated to the country by telegrams sent 

 from New Orleans, and published in almost all 

 the papers of the country this morning ; and 

 the Senator from Ohio very properly, as I con- 

 ceive, not desiring to act upon mere newspaper 

 rumors of the day, offers in his place in the 

 Senate-Chamber a resolution respectfully re- 

 questing the President of the United States to 

 communicate to this body information on that 

 subject, to tell us whether there was any in- 

 terference by the military authorities of the 

 country for the purpose of preventing or inter- 

 fering with the organization of either House 

 of the Legislature of Louisiana ; and then, if 

 that has been the fact, what is the authority, 

 where is the law which justified such inter- 

 vention? That is the purport, the sum and 

 substance of the resolution offered by the Sen- 

 ator from Ohio." 



Mr. Logan, of Illinois, said : " Mr. Presi- 

 dent, a resolution of inquiry is offered request- 

 ing the President of the United States to give 

 certain information to the Senate of the United 

 States, with the amendment proposed ' if not 

 incompatible with the public interest,' which 

 is in accordance, as I understand, with pre- 

 cedents and the usage of the Senate ; and 

 another amendment is to be offered, I under- 

 stand, asking that the President shall give all 

 the facts, not only in connection with the use 

 of the army or a portion of it yesterday in New 

 Orleans, but the facts in connection with that 

 which has transpired in Louisiana preceding 

 the action of yesterday. Now, Mr. President, 

 I am as much in favor of having that informa- 

 tion asked for as any Senator in this Chamber, 

 without giving any opinion as to the right or 

 wrong, for I have none to give until I hear the 

 facts, and I should like to hear them for the 

 purpose of forming a judgment and deciding 

 thereon. This is a question in reference to the 

 exercise of certain power, whether delegated 



to the officers or authorities of the Govern- 

 ment or not, or if delegated whether exercised 

 in accordance with that authority. I should 

 like to know myself as to that ; but at the 

 same time that we ascertain that, I should like 

 to know, as the Senator from Indiana has in- 

 dicated by his amendment, the other facts in 

 connection with this, and to know what the 

 meaning of all their conduct is. Let me now 

 say that I do not propose myself any means of 

 arriving at power in the people or in a portion 

 of the people except through legalized and con- 

 stituted modes." 



Mr. Edmunds : " Mr. President, I should like 

 to say a word or two upon this subject, and 

 first touching the amendment of the Senator 

 from New York, which the Senator from Ohio 

 so much opposes. The Senator from Ohio has 

 discovered, as he states, that it is not of much 

 consequence whether the amendment be adopt- 

 ed or not; that the President of the United 

 States will furnish this information at the earli- 

 est possible moment, and it is a mere question 

 of etiquette and orderly procedure whether we 

 shall put it to him conditionally or absolutely 

 as a request. Upon that topic it is not worth 

 while to spend a great deal of time ; but inas- 

 much as the Senator has cited one precedent 

 with which I, it seems, was connected he calls 

 it a precedent and one or two others, it is per- 

 haps necessary for the rightful proceeding of 

 the Senate that we should say something about 

 them. 



"Now, then, the point is not whether some 

 resolution has passed through this body that 

 did not contain these words, but whether the 

 Senate has ever refused to insert such words 

 when they were proposed. Upon that point 

 I think I can safely challenge the great learn- 

 ing of my friend from Ohio and the great 

 industry of the dozen people who may have 

 been employed to hunt up these precedents, as 

 he calls them, to produce one. He has not 

 done it. I did not challenge the Senator from 

 Ohio to produce one instance in which a resolu- 

 tion had passed without these words ; but I did 

 endeavor to ask him if he could name then an 

 instance when the Senate had declined to do 

 what the Senator from New York proposed 

 should be done here. I do not know whether 

 the language that I adopted was particularly 

 well adapted to convey that idea or not, be- 

 cause I was somewhat shy of interrupting the 

 Senator from Ohio at all, but that was the 

 substantial point. Upon that point the Senator 

 from Ohio, having exhausted all his ammuni- 

 tion, has not yet been able to show that in any 

 instance in which the attention of the Senate 

 was called to the topic, and such words were 

 proposed to be inserted, the Senate ever failed 

 to insert them, and that without a division. I 

 suppose on this occasion we shall have a division, 

 and we shall find on one side the solid phalanx 

 of the excusers and the apologists and the de- 

 fenders of what they call the rights of the 

 people in the Southern States, which means 



