Page images
PDF
EPUB

MASON'S SUPPORT OF WIGFALL.

given the Senate even official notice, what right had they to say that she should be no longer entitled to representation? They were clothed with no such authority."

Clingman's Defence of Wig fall.

Clingman's defence of Wigfall was sought to be on purely logical grounds. -the North Carolina Senator not caring to speak out personally in the matter. He said: "Was it ever maintained, because one Senator differed from another on a constitutional question,

that that was a reason to expel him? It might be supposed that the Senate could expel a man who thought and agreed that the moon was made of green cheese, [laughter,] and that such a one should be driven out. But would any gentleman say he ought to be driven out? Fifteen Senators have gone out, believing their States have a right to secede. The mother of States and statesmen, Virginia, has always maintained that opinion. If it is an error for

the Senator from Texas to believe his State has a right to secede, why not expel the Virginia Senators; and especially why not expel those gentlemen who declared it, and have gone away? Why is it that their names are still called? They have gone

35

[blocks in formation]

ables the Senate to protect itself, and gives power to expel a member, provided that twothirds vote for the resolution. But the expulsion of a Senator is punative in character, and the intention of the Senator from Connecticut is to punish the Senator from Texas for what he uttered in debate. The Senator from Connecticut said what the Senator from Texas had avowed was inconsistent with holding a seat on this floor. The Senator had declared that he was a foreigner, and not a citizen of the United States, but owed allegiance to a foreign Government. If the away, showing an utter disregard for contrary opin- Senator from Connecticut thought the Senions. But the Senator says Texas has taken pos- ator from Texas ought not to occupy a seat session of some of the public property. Is that a there, because he is not a citizen of the United good reason? If so, it applies with more force to States, he ought to move to refer the subject other States than Texas. Why did the Senator to a committee, so that if the facts warrant, from Connecticut allow the name of Jefferson Davis the seat will be declared vacant. If it be a to be called, and not move to expel him? Not only punishable offense to allege a constitutional had that gentleman's State seceded, but he had ad- truth, then the resolution may be well foundvised arms and forts to be seized, and was at the ed. For one, he (Mason) recognized no allehead of a foreign Republic; but no motion was made to expel him. The Senator said he deemed it his giance to this Government. He recognized duty to make a motion to expel Mr. Wigfall. Senand acknowledged no allegiance to this ator after Senator had made similar avowals, and Government, none whatever; and he there even advised their citizens to take possession of the took his position beside the Senator from defensive works of the United States. Senator Texas, although Virginia is a constituent of Toombs declared that he gave such advice. Why, this Government, and he one of her reprethen, single out the Senator from Texas? His sentatives. He owed allegiance to Virginia, friend, Mr. Wigfall, had said his State has seceded, and to no one else. Did the Senator from Conand with great frankness added that therefore he necticut resist the doctrine of constitutional regarded himself as a foreigner. But this did not law, and hold that the Government of the afford sufficient ground for his expulsion. He had United States is still a sovereign? If he did, pursued the policy of other retiring Senators by reGod help him! So far as the Senator from maining here, and was awaiting official information. Texas has committed an offense by saying he The course proposed by the Senator from Connecticut was not the proper one. All they could do owed no allegiance to this Government, he was to say that the Senator from Texas is mistaken stood by his side. He should be unfaithful on a constitutional and legal point. If Texas has to Virginia if he did not. The old feudal not seceded, he is entitled to his seat here, notwith- idea of allegiance was the relation between standing the opinion he expresses." the subject and sovereign, between the vassal This reference to the Virginia Senators and lord. Allegiance here is that which is called both Mason and Hunter, who had due from a citizen to a sovereign power. He

up

Mason's Support of
Wigfall.

He was sworn to support the Constitution, and not the Government.

Hunter's Endorsement of Mason.

Hunter regarded this movement as calculated to be dangerous. The resolution proposed to censure a member for a mere expression of opinion. The Senator from Texas had done nothing more than declare his belief in the doctrine of Secession, and that his State had seceded, but that until he had the evidence of this he would sit here. With other State Rights men, he avow

66

knew of no sovereign except the State. He took it for granted that Connecticut is the Senator's sovereign, and that if he yields allegiance to this Government, he is faithless. The oath of allegiance in Virginia, to be taken by all who are admitted to the political powers of the State, is faithfully and truly to support the Commonwealth. If the Senator from Texas is a foreigner, he is not a citizen of the United States. But that is because of the fact, not because of the allegation, for the Constitution says that a foreignered that he owed obedience to the Constitushall not have a seat on this floor. The tion and laws, but not allegiance. All that Senator from Texas said he believed he was he had said was, as he believed a majority a foreigner to this Government, because in all the Southern States who hold to the Texas has separated herself from it; for the right of Secession, hold if right was exerSenator did not then know the fact, nor did cised the State placed itself in foreign relahe know it now, unless he believed the intel- tion with the rest of the Union." If this ligence last night. The Senator believed was a cause for expulsion, why might not a that Texas has seceded, because he knew the Senator be expelled for other differences or popular sentiment of the State; and yet, declarations of opinion? How long might it because of his declaration, the Senator be before it would be obnoxious to defend from Connecticut sought his expulsion. Slavery, and perhaps a two-thirds vote be obThe Senator and others, and the new Presi- tained for upholding that institution? The dent, assume that the Ordinance declaring power of expelling a member was never given separation is null, and the State holds the for such purposes. Members could be punsame relation it did before the passage of the ished according to the Constitution only for act. We (said Mr. Mason) deny it; Virginia disorderly conduct, and, according to all denies it. Six of the States, as far as we writers on Parliamentary law, it is always to know, not only deny it, but have acted on it; be exercised with great caution and care. If and not only have confederated, but formed a man was to be punished for the expression a Government prepared to sustain itself, if of a mere abstract opinion, where was the this Government shall attempt to attack it. usage to end? He maintained, as the SenIf the Senator from Connecticut would say ator from Texas had expressed no opinion that the act was a nullity, then he held that had not been expressed by all the Senlanguage which he (Mason) thought, with ators of the Seceded States, if he was to be great respect to him, is more disrespectful punished, then, they too must be expelled, tenfold than the language for which the Sen- for they have given a practical proof that ator says the Senator from Texas deserves to they are foreigners, from the fact that they be expelled. Why? Because by that lan- have gone off and established another Govguage five millions of people and seven sov- ernment. He agreed with his colleague ereign States are in insurrection. They de- (Mason) that they owe allegiance to their clare the acts of Secession nullities, although State, and only obedience to the Constitution. these States seize what they call public prop- We have given these arguments from their erty. Yet, acknowledging all other, they novelty, and as showing the peculiar philostake no means to recover it. In not acting ophy of that "Southern idea" which sought upon the information, they are more repre- to become the controlling power of a new hensible than the Senator from Texas. How Confederacy. How long would a confedercould he owe allegiance to this Government? ation exist if the very first principle of conThen he must obey the orders of this Govern- federation, allegiance, was spurned? The ment in preference to those of his own State. entire course of debate on the question of

INTERESTING

RESOLUTIONS.

37

Secession and revolution had not obtained more important admissions of first principles than came from these Southern leaders pending the discussion on Mr. Foster's resolution. Those who wish for light on "Southern" philosophy, should consult the Globe report of Mason and Hunter's speeches. The resolution, on Tuesday, on motion of Simmons, of Rhode Island, was referred to the Judiciary Committee.

tions.

On Wednesday two imInteresting Resolu- portant resolutions were introduced. One by Mr. Douglas, of inquiry in regard to the Southern forts, arsenals, military operations, &c., was as follows:

"Resolved, That the Secretary of War be requested to inform the Senate what forts, arsenals, navyyards, and other public works within the limits of the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, are now

within the actual possession and occupation of the

United States, and by what number of men each is garrisoned and held, and whether reenforcements are necessary to retain the same; and if so, whether the Government has the power and means under existing laws to supply such reenforcements within such time as the exigencies and necessities of the case may demand, and whether the defence and protection of the United States and their interests make it necessary and wise to retain military possession of such forts, places, and other property, except at Key West and Tortugas, and to recapture and reoccupy such others as the United States have been deprived of by seizure or surrender for any other purpose, and with a view to any other end than the subjugation and occupation of those

States which have assumed the right to secede from the Union, and within whose limits such forts and other public property are situated; and if such be the motives for recapturing and holding the forts and other public property, what military force, including regulars and volunteers, would be necessary to enable the United States to reduce the States aforesaid, and such others as are supposed to sympathize with them, to subjection and obedience to the laws of the Union, and to protect the Federal Capital."

The other resolution, offered by Mr. Fessenden, for the vacation of the seats of Southern Senators, was as follows:

"Resolved, That Messrs. Benjamin, of Louisiana; Brown and Davis, of Mississippi; Clay, of Alabama; Mallory, of Florida and Toombs, of Georgia, having announced that they are no longer members of the

Interesting Resolutions.

Senate, their seats have become vacant, and the Secretary of the Senate is directed to strike their names from the roll of members." Both resolutions being objected to by Southern members, were laid over, to be called up on the succeeding day.

On Thursday Mason offered a resolution, calling on the Secretary of War to inform the Senate whether any portion of the Dis trict of Columbia Militia, or any officers thereof, since the 1st of January, have been mustered into the service of the United States, and whether any duty has been imposed on them by the War Department; if so, whether they have received any, and what pay and allowances, the nature of the duties, for what time employed, and whether the same still continues to be performed, &c.

This, being objected to, laid over, when Mr. Douglas called up his resolution of the previous day. Mr. Fessenden, however, objected to its consideration, on the ground that it was a matter on which the Senate could not act, as it required legislation, and they were here only as an Executive session. He therefore demanded the yeas and nays on the resolution.

Mr. Hunter hoped the resolution would be taken up. It interested very deeply the country, who want to know whether we are to have peace or war. He did not agree with the Senator from Maine, that the resolution was legislative in its character.

Mr. Clingman had prepared a resolution advising the President to make a treaty with the Seceded States relative to this very property. Whether this was proper or not, everybody admitted that the President and Senate are the treaty-making power, and that whatever they do in that capacity is final, without reference to the other House. He repeated, the true policy was for the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make such a treaty.

Mr. Douglas thought the majority ought to permit his resolution to be taken up, in order that he (Douglas) might explain his object in offering it, which was for the best of purposes.

Mr. Mason said that the resolution called for information of very great moment, and

if the majority refused to take it up, the in- | Fessenden accepted the verbal modification ference would be that they desired to suppress as suggested, when Bayard again opposed information affecting the question of peace

or war.

Mr. Fessenden had his objections to the resolution. His opinion was, that it would be unwise to pass it; hence he could not withdraw his objection.

The question was taken, and the Senate refused to proceed to the consideration of the resolution by yeas 16, nays 24; all the Republicans voting in the negative.

Mr. Fessenden then called up his resolution declaring the seats of Southern Senators vacant. By a vote of twenty-six to thirteen, the Senate proceeded to its consideration, when Bayard, of Delaware, offered a substitute, viz.:

Bayard's Substitute fer Fessenden's Resolution.

"That Messrs. Albert G. Brown and Jefferson Davis, of Mississippi; Stephen R. Mallory, of Florida; Clement C. Clay, of Alabama; Robert Toombs, of Georgia; and Judah P. Benjamin, of Louisiana, having announced that, by the secession of their respective States, they were no longer members of the Senate, and withdrawn therefrom, the Secretary is directed to omit their names in calling the roll of the Senate."

In support of his resolution, Mr. Bayard denied that there had been any resignations. The persons named had withdrawn, because of the acts of secession of their States. As the majority of the Senate did not recognize the right of secession, it could not consider the gentlemen as legally or virtually out of their seats. Only their absence could be recognized, and the right

to omit calling their names on the roll was all that could be exercised in the premises. He therefore assumed that the substitute was required.

Mason was perfectly satisfied the gentlemen named in the resolution were not members of the Senate, and therefore was perfectly willing to vote for a resolution endorsing the fact. He took it for granted that Mr. Fessenden meant no discourtesy by calling in the resolution for their names to be stricken from the roll. He suggested the substitution of the word "omit." The resolution implied that seats were vacant from those States. For this he could not vote.

the resolution on the points which he already had raised, and advocated his substitute. Fessenden replied at some length. He said a Senator can vacate his seat at pleasure; as to how or when he may do it, with or without assigning reasons, whether these

[ocr errors]

Fessenden's Reply to Bayard.

be good or insufficient, is a matter of the Senator's own choice-his own act. He agreed with Mr. Bayard in the remark that, after being elected, the Senator had power over himself, and might continue a member or not, according to his will or pleasure, except so far as he might be operated on by this body itself. It was not necessary that the resignation should be in writing. It depended on no form or words. With the reasons of those gentlemen who have withdrawn he had nothing to do. If they were satisfactory to them, they were satisfactory to him. They have declared they are no longer members of the Senate; and, having so declared, have withdrawn from the Senate, and carried out their purpose to remain no longer. He regarded that as a resignation of their seats. He had simply declared this in his resolu tion, they having made the announcement and carried it into operation. The result

was, their seats have become vacant, no

others having been elected to take their places. The seats were vacant, and to be filled. He differed with the Senator from

Delaware. The seats were still at the disposal of these States, to be filled whenever

they thought proper to do so. He, there

fore, held to the original resolution, which expresses the fact in proper phraseology, and was opposed to Mr. Bayard's substitute, because it only proposed to correct the roll.

The vote being had, Bayard's substitute was rejected-12 to 26. Clark (of New Hampshire) offered a substitute, which Fessenden accepted, viz.:

Whereas, The seats occupied by Messrs. Brown

and Davis, of Mississippi; Mallory, of Florida; Clay,

of Alabama; Toombs, of Georgia; and Benjamin, of Louisiana, as members of the Senate, have become vacant: therefore :

[blocks in formation]

DOUGLAS ON THE POWER OF THE

EXECUTIVE.

39

Mason proposed a gracious salutation for the "dear departed," by amending the resolution so as to make it include the words: "The gentlemen named have ceased to become members." The majority of the Senate were in doubt, apparently, as to the claim which the persons named had to the title of gentle-men, for the amendment of the Virginia Senator was rejected. Clark's substitute for the Fessenden Resolution was adopted-24 to 10. The seats of the seceded members were, therefore, finally declared vacated; the Senate had resented the long list of outrages upon its dignity by omitting the names of Toombs, Davis, Benjamin, and others of the arch-conspirators from its roll-call! Had the resolution read, "have become vacant through their disloyalty and treason," it would at least have proven the Senate to have possessed a consciousness that such a crime as treason had existence.

The Douglas Resolu

Friday, Mr. Douglas called up his resolution re

tion of Inquiry. garding the southern forts,

Douglas on the Powers of the Executive.

the country was drifting,
and might say whether or
not they were to be plunged
into war without the sanction of Congress or
their own consent. He then recurred to the
want of power to collect the revenues off
ship-board. By the laws of the land, the rev-
enue must be collected at the ports of entry,
and in the Custom-houses designated by
special provision, and can only be collected
elsewhere in specific, cases specifically pro-
vided for in the law.

Mr. Douglas referred, at some length, to the law of 2d March, 1799, creating the three collective districts covering the coast of South Carolina, and proceeded to show that "ports of entry" were only so in the sense of a full compliance with the law which, in creating them, stipulated that the duties should be paid at the Custom-house-that the Collector should reside at the port, &c., &c. The exceptions to the requirements were only in cases where the vessel was ice-bound-in which event the goods were especially permitted to be landed otherwise than at the port of entry. That was the only exception.

The speaker took strong ground on the fact that the President could not order revenue-cutters to any harbor, that duties might be collected from their decks. He said:

46

The law in this respect stands now just as it did

when General Jackson, in 1832, called on Congress for additional legislation to enable him to collect

revenue at the port of Charleston. Then General Jackson had no power to remove the Custom-house

&c. [See page 37.] Its discussion consumed most of the day. Messrs. Douglas, Fessenden, and Wilson entered in the debate, which became quite personal, if not acrimonious. Clark moved an amendment to the resolution by omitting all after the words "United States," (seventh line.) Douglas refused the amendment, and proceeded to address the Senate at length. He deemed the information called for, if given, would quiet the mind of the country, now so deeply from the city of Charleston to ship-board in the hardisturbed in apprehension of civil war. If bor. He had no power to order the collection of the apprehensions were allowed to ripen into revenue anywhere else than at the place designated a conviction that the Administration medi- by law as the port of entry. Congress passed the tated a war policy to reduce to subjection the law known as the 'Force Bill,' March 2d, 1833, and Seceded States, a terrific issue would be pre- the first and fifth sections, cipitated in a shorter time than any one could which gave authority to collect anticipate. He conceived the policy of the the revenue at any place in the President to be one of peace; and to demon-harbor, and the power to use military force, expired strate that such was his policy, the resolution at the end of the next session of Congress by express would call out such information as would clear up any doubts entertained as to his purposes. If the answer was as he (Douglas) anticipated, it would quiet the country, and cause rejoicing throughout the land.

If, on the contrary, the policy was war, it was due to the people that they be informed, in order that they might see whither

limitation. *

Douglas on the Powers of the Executive.

* Even if the Force Bill' were

now in operation, it would not be possible to collect
the revenue under it in the existing state of affairs,
because the bill confined the right to collect the
revenue within the port itself; whereas all the port
is in possession of the Southern Confederacy, so that
a ship cannot be anchored inside of the bar.
What is true of Charleston in this respect is clearly
correct of Savannah, Mobile, and New Orleans. *

« PreviousContinue »