POWERS OF THE TWO HOUSES OF CONGRESS

IN THE ABSENCE OF A QUORUM.

PROTEST IN THE SENATE, AT ITS OPENING, JULY 3, 1867.

JULY 3d, according to the provision in the resolution of adjournment at the last session, Congress met at noon this day. The Chief Clerk read the resolution.1 Mr. Sumner then said that he rose to a question of order on the resolution.

THE

HE resolution under which Congress is to-day assembled, so far as it undertakes to direct the adjournment of the two Houses of Congress without day, in the absence of a quorum of the two Houses, is unconstitutional and inoperative, inasmuch as the Constitution, after declaring that "a majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business," proceeds to provide that "a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members"; and therefore such resolution must not be regarded by the Chair, so far as it undertakes to provide for an adjournment without day.

As, according to the view, there is a quorum already present, the incident contemplated by the resolution

1 Ante, p. 175.

will not arise; but I felt it my duty, by way of precaution and caveat, to introduce this protest, to the end that the resolution may not hereafter be drawn into a precedent so as to abridge the rights of the two Houses of Congress under the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, differed from Mr. Sumner, and entered his "protest against any such construction of the Constitution as denies to the two Houses of Congress the right to regulate their own adjournments." After quoting the text of the Constitution, that "a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members," Mr. Sumner said:

HERE is a concurrent resolution providing for a future meeting of Congress. To that extent it is unquestionably constitutional; but when the resolution imposes shackles upon the two Houses of Congress assembled by virtue of that resolution, then, I submit, it does what, under the National Constitution, it cannot do, its words are powerless. Congress, when once assembled by virtue of that resolution, has all the powers of a Congress of the United States under the Constitution. That resolution cannot restrain it. Such, at any rate, is my conclusion, after the best reflection that I have been able to give to these words of the Constitution; and I feel it my duty to make this protest, to the end that what we now do may not be drawn into an example hereafter. It is well known that those words were introduced in order to tie the hands of Congress, should it come together and there be no quorum present, in short, to despoil the Congress then assembled of the prerogative secured to it by the National Constitution. To that

extent I suggest that the resolution hereafter shall be regarded as of no value, and not be quoted as a precedent.

After reply from Mr. Trumbull, the subject was dropped.

HOMESTEADS FOR FREEDMEN.

RESOLUTION IN THE SENATE, JULY 3, 1867.

RESOLVED, That the reconstruction of the Rebel

States would be hastened, and the best interest of the country promoted, if the President of the United States, in the exercise of the pardoning power, would require that every landed proprietor who has been engaged in the Rebellion, before receiving pardon therefor, should convey to the freedmen, his former slaves, a certain portion of the land on which they have worked, so that they may have a homestead in which their own labor has mingled, and that the disloyal master may not continue to appropriate to himself the fruits of their toil.

On motion of Mr. Sumner, this was printed and laid on the table. The rule limiting business during the present session prevented him from calling it up.

LIMITATION OF THE BUSINESS OF THE SENATE.

OBLIGATIONS OF SENATE CAUCUSES.

SPEECHES IN THE SENATE, JULY 3, 5, AND 10, 1867.

MR. SUMNER had looked to this session not only for precautions against the President, but for legislation on Suffrage. He had never doubted that there would be a session. March 30th, just before the final adjournment, he gave notice that on the first Wednesday of July he should ask the Senate to proceed with his bill to secure the elective franchise to colored citizens, when Mr. Sherman, of Ohio, said, "The Senator had better add, 'or some subsequent day.'" [Laughter.] Mr. Sumner said: "I beg the Senate to take notice that there will be a session on the first Wednesday of July, to proceed with business. I have reason to believe that there will be a quorum here, for there will be important public business that must be attended to."

On the completion of the organization, Mr. Sumner proceeded to offer petitions, when he was interrupted by Mr. Fessenden, of Maine, who said: "I desire to interpose an objection to the reference of these petitions; and I may as well bring the question up here now, before the Senator offers any more. I do it for the reason that in my judg ment it is not expedient at the present session to act upon general business"; and he referred to the course at the session of the TwentySeventh Congress, called by President Harrison. Mr. Sumner said, in reply:

Med

R. PRESIDENT,- We are a Congress of the United States, assembled under the National Constitution, and with all the powers belonging to Congress,—ay, Sir, and with all the responsibilities also. We cannot, by agreement or understanding, divest ourselves of these