CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



171 



or Washington. Again, if the object of this 

 resolution is merely to organize a committee 

 for campaign purposes, to make campaign lit- 

 erature for the coming fall, I affirm that the 

 exigencies of a political party have never yet 

 been treated as a question of privilege. 



" Furthermore, there is in this resolution 

 and I reserve the point of order after the point 

 now raised shall have been settled a proposi- 

 tion that the committee shall have the right to 

 report at any time, and that they shall have 

 the right to sit in recess. Neither of these 

 things can be effected by a majority vote if it 

 comes to that, and I reserve on them the 

 points of order when the time shall have ar- 

 rived. I conclude by saying I am glad that at 

 last, after this proceeding has so long been 

 hanging over the country, we now know what 

 they are seeking to do. For some weeks I 

 have been inclined to say to these gentlemen 

 in the language of Hamlet in his advice to the 

 players : 



Leave off your damnable faces and begin." 

 Mr. Cox, of New York, said : " Let me say 

 one word in reply to the gentleman from Ohio 

 (Mr. Garfield). The gentleman from Ohio was 

 one of the Electoral Commission. On the 9th 

 of February, 1877, he decided on the question 

 of Florida. He voted in the affirmative along 

 with Messrs. Miller, Strong, Bradley, Edmunds, 

 Morton, Frelinghuysen, and Hoar eight, in- 

 cluding himself, against seven. At that time 

 he held, according to the report 



That it is not competent under the Constitution 

 and the law, as it existed at the date of the passage 

 of said act, to go into evidence aliunde on the papers 

 opened by the President of the Senate in the pres- 

 ence of the two Houses to prove that other persons 

 than those regularly certified to by the Governor of 

 the State of Florida, in and according to the deter- 

 mination and declaration of their appointment by 

 the Board of State Canvassers of said State prior to 

 the time required for the performance of their duties, 

 had been appointed electors, or by counter-proof to 

 show that they had not, and that all proceedings of 

 the courts or acts of the Legislature, or of the execu- 

 tive of Florida, subsequent to the casting of the votes 

 of the electors on the prescribed day, are inadmissi- 

 ble for any such purpose. 



" The gentleman from Ohio has a convenient 

 conscience, or rather a convenient logic. At 

 that time it suited his purpose not to allow the 

 States to come in at all. It was aliunde. Now 

 it suits his purpose, since these ' damnable 

 faces have begun,' to keep out the States from 

 presenting their grievances for inquiry under 

 fresh allegations and proofs, so that they are 

 not permitted to come here, hardly even by 

 courtesy, as was held by the gentleman the 

 other day when the State of Maryland present- 

 ed that petition. 



" It seems to me, therefore, that whatever 

 we may do, whatever steps may be taken to 

 reach and unravel this great transaction, we 

 cannot at least agree with the gentleman from 

 Ohio when he says that all these questions 

 were and are outside the record. It would be 

 strange, indeed, if we cannot hear from the 



States on a subject so momentous in its tenor 

 and consequences. 



" So far as a question of privilege is con- 

 cerned in this matter, it seems to be a high 

 question, one of the highest. It is one of the 

 categories in our book of rules : ' Election of 

 President.' Whether the ruling referred to in 

 the Digest (on page 287, Journal second ses- 

 sion, Forty-fourth Congress, pages 555, 556) 

 refers to the matter of questioning the election 

 of a President when the count is pending, or 

 whether it refers to other and subsequent mat- 

 ters challenging the count, I have not exam- 

 ined, nor is it necessary. They are of equal 

 importance and dignity. But an election of 

 President and all that concerns it is a question 

 of privilege. Non constat but it may lead to 

 impeachment or its preliminaries. So far as 

 this resolution goes, the very terms of the res- 

 olution fix some sort of charge upon certain 

 officers, a Secretary of the Treasury, a minister 

 abroad, and in that respect it is a question of 

 the highest privilege. It is so according to the 

 dictum of the gentleman from Ohio himself. 

 Therefore, if he be correct in saying that this 

 is a question of privilege, if it should proceed 

 until it reach to impeachment, then, according 

 to the very terms and intent of the resolution, 

 impeachment in the end may be reached by 

 this process." 



Mr. Conger : u In answer to the remarks of 

 the gentleman from New York (Mr. Cox), and 

 partly in answer to the other gentleman from 

 New York (Mr. Potter), I desire to say that 

 the very memorial upon which this whole 

 matter is based is not before the House. It is 

 not in the possession of the mover. But it 

 has nothing to do with it. This House has 

 received the memorial of the State of Mary- 

 land, whether as petition or memorial or 

 whatever it may be, and this House has re- 

 ferred it to the Committee on the Judiciary, 

 and there that memorial is, in the hands of 

 that committee. It is not before this House 

 for any earthly purpose, then, until the House 

 discharge that committee or the committee re- 

 port it back to the House. Now, sir, I cannot 

 understand by what rule any member of this 

 House can assume under color of any pretend- 

 ed question of privilege to lay his hands upon 

 the memorial and state it has been received by 

 the House and has been referred to a commit- 

 tee while that memorial still remains with that 

 committee, and assume himself to use it and 

 bring it in a roundabout way before this 

 House. The gentleman from New York is 

 not even a member of the committee. He has 

 no access to that memorial. He lays hands 

 upon it in violation of the order of the House 

 placing it in charge of the Committee on the 

 Judiciary. If I might characterize it, I would 

 say that it is disrespectful to the House for 

 him to claim his right to act upon it when 

 the House has otherwise directed. If I might 

 characterize it, I would say that it is disre- 

 spectful to the committee of this House to 



