« PreviousContinue »
lification, kindred in origin and character. The present pretension of New Jersey belongs to the same school with that abhorred and blood-bespattered pretension of South Carolina.
Perhaps, Sir, it is not unnatural that the doctrines of South Carolina on State Rights should obtain shelter in New Jersey. Like sees like. There is a common bond among the sciences, among the virtues, among the vices, — and so, also, among the monopolies. The monopoly founded on the hideous pretension of property in man obtained responsive sympathy in that other monopoly founded on the greed of unjust taxation, and both were naturally upheld in the name of State Rights. Both must be overthrown in the name of the Union. South Carolina must cease to be a Slave State, and New Jersey must also cease her disturbing pretension. All hail to the genius of Universal Emancipation! All hail to the Union, victorious over the Rebellion, victorious, also, over a Usurpation which menaces the unity of the Republic !
REPRESENTATION OF VIRGINIA IN THE
REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON THE CREDENTIALS of Hon. JOSEPH
SEGAR, OF VIRGINIA, February 17, 1865.
FEBRUARY 17th, Mr. Willey, of West Virginia, presented the credentials of Hon. Joseph Segar, appointed Senator by a State Government of Virginia, sitting at Alexandria. Mr. Sumner moved their reference to the Committee on the Judiciary, and during the discussion that ensued said:
REGRET that'a question of this magnitude has
been precipitated upon the Senate at this late period of the session, when there is so much public business which has not yet received the attention of either House of Congress. The Senator from Michigan [Mr. HOWARD) does not exaggerate its magnitude. Sir, it is much to be a Senator of the United States, with all the powers and privileges pertaining to that office, legislative, diplomatic, and executive; and the question is, whether all these shall be recognized in the gentleman whose certificate has been sent to the Chair. I thought it my duty, on hearing the certificate read as I entered the Chamber, to move its reference to the Committee on the Judiciary. I am astonished that there can be any hesitation in that reference. Senators who hesitate show insensibility to the character of the question. Will the Senate act blindfold, or with eyes open ? I
insist that on such a question it shall act with eyes open, wide open; and I know no way in which this can be accomplished, except through the intervention of a responsible Committee. Therefore, Sir, I proposed that the credentials should be referred: It will be the duty of the Committee, as my friend from Michigan suggests, to consider, in the first place, whether a State in armed rebellion, like Virginia, can have Senators on this floor. That is a great question, constitu• tional, political, practical. It will be their duty then
to consider whether the gentleman whose credentials are before us is the legal choice of any State under the National Constitution. Now, Sir, I do not intend to prejudge either of these questions. I simply open them for consideration.
I say, Sir, I do not inean to prejudge these questions ; but I do insist that a measure of this importance shall not be acted on without due consideration, and in absolute indifference to facts staring us in the face, glaring upon us every day in every newspaper that we read. Sir, you cannot be insensible to facts. It is in vain that Senators say that Virginia, now in war against the Union, is entitled to representation on this floor, when you have before you the inexorable fact that the greater part of the State is at this moment in the possession of an armed Rebellion, and that other fact, repeated by the newspapers of the land, that the body of men who have undertaken to send a Senator to Congress are little more than the Common Council of Alexandria. The question is distinctly presented, whether a representative of the Common Council of Alexandria is to enter this Chamber, and share the powers and privileges of my honorable friend near me, the Senator from New
York [Mr. MORGAN], or my friend farther from me, the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. COWAN]. I merely open these points, without undertaking to decide them, but simply as an unanswerable argument in favor of the reference.
Afterwards, in reply to Mr. Foster, of Connecticut, Mr. Sumner said :
SUPPOSE it was matter of public notoriety that I came into this Chamber with a certificate from a body of men in Boston, little more in number and character than the Common Council of that city, not in fact supposed to represent the State; suppose this fact much received in the country; then I submit to the Senator whether it would not be the duty of the Senate, before receiving my credentials, to inquire into their origin.
The debate continued, when Mr. Sherman, of Ohio, moved that the credentials lie on the table. The motion was adopted, — Yeas 29, Nays 13. Mr. Segar's claim to a seat was never prosecuted.
REPUDIATION OF THE REBEL DEBT.
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION IN THE SENATE, FEBRUARY 17, 1865.
February 17th, Mr. Sumner introduced the following concurrent resolution, and asked its immediate consideration.
HEREAS certain persons have put in circula
tion the report, that, on the suppression of the Rebellion, the Rebel debt or loan may be recognized in whole or in part by the United States; and
Whereas such a report is calculated to give a false value to such Rebel debt or loan: Therefore,
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That Congress hereby declares that the Rebel debt or loan is simply an agency of the Rebellion, which the United States can never, under any circumstances, recognize in any part or in any way.
Mr. Saulsbury and Mr. McDougall objecting, its consideration was postponed. In the evening of the same day the resolution was taken up, on motion of Mr. Sumner, and adopted without a division.
March 3d, the resolution was concurred in by the House of Representatives without a division.
This resolution was a direct answer to a pretension set up in England.