that position, or else it should reconsider the proceedings of that day, and adopt a resolution declaring the seats vacant from the time the Senators withdrew.

One word further, if the gentleman will indulge me, and I shall not detain the Senate longer. I wish to be distinctly understood, that in taking this position it has not been done from any sympathy for the Senators from Virginia, or with that portion of Virginia who have assumed to secede from the Union; because I believe, with the Senator from California, that if there ever was a damnable doctrine, and one which is leading to the most dangerous and alarming consequences in this country, it is the doctrine of secession; and I, like him, will give no vote here or elsewhere to countenance it under any circumstances. At the same time, sir, I choose to make the objection I do, because I honestly believe that from the action of the Senate, and by the judgment of the Senate, they are estopped from saying that there was a vacancy in their body from Virginia prior to Thursday last.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee. It seems that the Senator and myself agree in the substance of what we have stated to the Senate. I understand him to admit the existence of the fact of a vacancy in the Senate of the United States from Virginia prior to the 11th of July, when the Senate passed the resolution to which he refers. If that fact exists, as it does, a mere reconsideration of the resolution now would not affect it one way or the other; for the passage of the resolution on the 11th did not do away with the fact.

Mr. SAULSBURY. Will my friend allow me a moment? I said that the Senate, being the judges of the election and qualification of their own members, had the right to treat the seats of the former Senators from Virginia as vacant from the time they withdrew; and if they had so treated it there would have been a vacancy.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee. Then the right of the Senate to treat it as a vacancy must grow out of the existence of the vacancy itself, which proves conclusively that the vacancy existed, and substantially commits the gentleman himself to the existence of a vacancy. But the question is not whether the Senate proceeds on the idea of a vacancy or not. A Senator, in tendering his resignation, frequently tenders it to the Legislature. It is not necessary to tender it to the Senate. It is for the Legislature of the State to determine that fact; and the Legislature of the Commonwealth of Virginia now proceed upon the existence of the fact. On the 9th day of July they assumed that vacancies existed in the Senate of the United States, occasioned by the withdrawal and abdication of R. M. T. Hunter and James M. Mason from the Senate of the United States. Is there a Senator upon this floor, of any party, who does not admit the existence of that fact? It is for the Legislature to determine. They have assumed what is true, that vacancies existed; and assuming that to be so, they have taken the regular steps, and have filled those vacancies. They have not been, as has been indicated here, elected for regular terms; but the Legislature have proceeded to fill vacancies which existed at the time of the election. That is the fact. If that fact did not exist, the reconsideration of the resolution adopted by this body would not bring it into existence; and the mere fact of the Senate passing a resolution, does not do away with the existence of the fact which the Legislature of the State of Virginia assumed to exist. There can be no question about that.

The case is clear in another point of view. According to the custom and usage of the Senate, here is prima facie evidence that an election has taken place, which entitles the members elect to appear and be qualified and take their seats; and then, in the event that any contest arises, it is competent for the Senate to refer it to the Committee on the Judiciary, or to any other committee, in its discretion, to ascertain all that may be necessary of the circumstances appertaining to

the election.

I think, sir, there can be no question as to the existence of the fact of vacancies, and surely there can be none as to the power of the Legislature to fill the vacancies. That has been done. It is competent, under the Constitution, for each House constituting the Congress of the United States to judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications

of its members. That is a clear, general power; and, according to the uniform construction of this constitutional provision, it is our duty, upon the presentation of these certificates, no contest being made, to permit the Senators to be qualified and take their seats as members of this body.

sentiment, to stand by that sentiment in the State which is trying to sustain and will in the end sustain the supremacy of the Constitution and the laws. To refer the case to the committee without a single fact being presented, without one single reason being given, when there is no real objection made to these Senators taking their seats, strikes me as very singular. The form of the credentials is regular; they come from an organized Legislature loyal to the Government; the vacancies exist, and yet it is said these credentials must be referred. The session is nearly at a close; it will come to a close in a few days; and yet these gentlemen are to be kept out of their seats by the proposed reference of the case. Is any reason given for it? Is there any fact to be investigated? What is it for but delay? What is it for but to impede and to embarrass the Union sentiment that is rising and growing throughout the land? Whether it is intended for that or not, that is the effect it is calculated to have.

The Senator from Illinois has referred to some cases that have heretofore occured. Let me refer to some others. It is not long since Oregon was admitted as a State. Do we not remember that before her admission two gentleman presented themselves here, were in the lobbies, were inside of the Senate, contending for seats as Senators of a State that was not then in the Union? If we were to construe the Constitution very strictly, or wanted to make an ad captandum argument, we might say that an election of Senators which took place prior to the admission of a State into the Union was not valid under the Constitution of the United States; but under the Constitution, the Senate having the general power to judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its members, they were permitted to take seats, notwithstanding they were elected prior to the admission of the State into the Union. How was it with the State of California? Her Senators were here for weeks anxiously waiting, impatiently waiting, for the Congress of the United States to admit California as a State. The election took place; they were here before the State was even in the Union; yet, dealing with the case under the general power of the Constitution, this body recognized, and admitted to seats here, Senators who had been elected prior to the admission of Cal-presented their credentials. I think it will be ifornia into the Union.

Upon these precedents I might safely rely if the cases were parallel; but they are not parallel. Is there the slightest resemblance between the cases? I am not questioning the power in the one case, while I am contending for it in the other. I am merely contending that these precedents are much stronger than the case now before the Senate.

It seems to me that there is not much in what the Senator from Delaware [Mr. SAULSBURY] said as to the action of the Senate. The great fact exists. The action of the Senate one way or the other does not do away with the fact. There were vacancies here from the State of Virginia. The Commonwealth of Virginia, the loyal portion of it acting under the Constitution and the law, have proceeded to fill those vacancies, and have done it; and the gentlemen so elected not only have the right to take their seats, but it is the constitutional duty of this body, upon the presentation of this paper, regular in every particular, to admit them. This ought to be allowed simply as a matter of right; and I think the Senate and the other branch of Congress, in cases of this kind, should be inclined, even where there is doubt, to put the most liberal construction; and to give their action the largest margin it is possible to give. Will the United States stand by and see a loyal portion of a State, maintaining all the authorities, prevented from having a fair and equal participation in the Government, and to that extent favor and tolerate and sanction open rebellion and encourage insurrection in another portion of the same State? If there is a State government in existence as a part of this Confederacy, and that State government has sent Senators here with certificates made out in the usual and regular form, it is the duty of the Government to come up to the relief of the State of Virginia, the loyal portion of it, and take it by the hand, and sustain it against rebels and traitors who are trying to overthrow it and to overturn the Government. It is our duty, I repeat again, our constitutional duty, to sanction and sustain, as far as it is possible, the State government in making the great move that she has made, which I conscientiously believe will result in the overthrow of treachery|| and treason to the people of the United States. We should give them all the aid we can; we should stand by the loyal men; we should give them encouragement; we should develop the Union sentiment, so that it may, if possible, arrest and crush out a set of usurpers who have sprung up in the land, and are trying to override and tread beneath their feet the great majority of the people.

I say it is the duty of the Senate and the duty of the House of Representatives to stand by these loyal men, to stand by Virginia as long as she is loyal to the Constitution, to stand by the Union

I trust and hope that the Senate will without hesitancy permit the Senators to be qualified and take their seats with their compeers in this body to battle with us for the preservation and for the existence of the Government, and against those who are making war upon it, and in the end help us to crush out a set of traitors who are attempting to overthrow the Government and all that is sacred and dear to man.

Mr. COLLAMER. It seems, Mr. President, that objections are taken to the reception, as members of this body, of the gentlemen who have

difficult to find a precedent in the history of this body, by which men who presented papers prima facie good were not allowed to take their seats. I think the thing never did happen. They have been sometimes deprived of those seats afterwards, on investigation, but I have never known them rejected at first. So much for precedent.

There are two difficulties which are suggested in this case. First, it is said that this is a certificate coming from a new government of Virginia, a new organization separated from the rest of the State, but acting for the State as a State. This is in the nature of a judicial proceeding; we are now judging of the qualification of our members. It is not at all an uncommon thing in our highest tribunals, that points arise in the investigation of cases, where the court are constrained to say" that is a political question; with that the courts have nothing to do." For instance: whether a foreign Government recently commenced has become au independent people, whether in court it is to be treated and considered as a nation, is not a point on which the court can decide. That is a political question; and if the executive head of the Government has received ministers from that Power, recognized it as a Power on earth, the courts cannot go into the question whether he did it right or did it wrong. It is a matter of political action and the political power is what settles it, and we cannot examine into it any more.

In analogy to that, in this judicial proceeding, must we not be governed by the fact that the government of Virginia that has executed these papers, and sent them to us, is recognized by our Executive? They have called on him for militia, and have received militia from him. He recognizes them as the government of Virginia. It is a political question; it is settled. There is no occasion for our inquiring further into that. We, as a judicial body, on this question, have nothing to do with that. Here is the executive of that State, recognized by the Executive of this Government: there is the end of that subject. Whether a course of proceedings might be instituted among us to call on our Executive to know whether he did this rightfully or not, is altogether a different affair. They are de facto the Government recognized by us. We have no more to do with that,

The other point which gentlemen make is, that thesc certificates, on the face of them, show that this election was made before the resolution was passed in this body expelling the Senators from that State; and this the Senator from Delaware insists amounts to an inconsistency in our action, if we admit them. To my mind, it does not.

The substance of that resolution, and the undisguised true character of it, when it is fairly examined and reduced to plain and unqualified English, is, that we have declared those Senators guilty of treason. That is the amount of it. They

have adhered to the enemies of the United States; they have withdrawn themselves from our body, and have refused to sustain the Government. In plain, direct English, it amounts to declaring them guilty of treason, so far as we can do so; and in judging of the associations of our own body, we must pass sometimes upon a subject of that kind, whether murder, treason, or anything else. To be sure, it does not convict the person so that he may be hung; but it does convict him for all the purposes of our action.

Now, what is the common-law effect of treason? It is clearly that, when a conviction of treason takes place, it attaints the blood and works a forfeiture from the time the act was committed, not the time the conviction was passed. Now, sir, if the recitals contained in the resolution which we passed be fairly examined, it will be found that they make it out that the men named in it were enemies to this Government; and it takes effect from the time that that was manifested in the way the resolution states; that is, at the commencement of this session. That is my view of that. That is an application of the analogies of law which relate to a subject of this kind.

In the next place, Mr. President, on that topic I have this to say: we treat this as the State of Virginia, for the reason I have already urged, if it needed any reason. If the State of Virginia

I care not when and how-has sent us here two new Senators, and the State of Virginia makes no objection to our act, and is content with it, and the seats are vacant, as we now have declared, I should not cavil much at allowing them to take their seats; certainly not until we hear from the State of Virginia that she is in some way discontented. I think she has a right to be heard here, and to send men here; and as long as she is contented with them, we ought to keep them here.

Mr. POWELL. I do not propose, sir, to enter info this discussion. I merely wish to enter my protest against this proceeding. My friend from California says that these gentlemen were chosen by a Legislature elected in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the State of Virginia. Is he not aware, is it not a fact judicially known to this Senate, that there is another person who was elected Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia? I think it is a fact of public notoriety to the Senate, that the body assuming to be the Legislature of Virginia, which elected these gentlemen as Senators, was composed of gentlemen elected to that body from perhaps less than a third or a fourth of the State of Virginia. There are, I believe, more than one hundred and fifty counties in that Commonwealth, and I have seen no statement that more than thirty or forty counties of that State were represented in the legislative body that elected the gentlemen whose certificates have been presented. These facts, I think, all judicially know; and consequently, if you permit these gentlemen to take their seats here, you overthrow the Constitution and our form of government.

My friend from New Hampshire tells us that this is a contest between despotism and constitutional liberty. Sir, so far as I have witnessed the action of the Executive, and, I regret to say, some of the acts of this body, it does not seem to me that the Constitution is much regarded. This proceeding is, in my judgment, an overthrow of the Constitution and the forms of our Government. As I said the other day, we have but little left save the Constitution, and I invoke Senators to preserve that.

I do not rise for the purpose of discussing this question. I know that nothing that I could say would have any influence upon Senators opposed to me here; but I think it my duty to make a solemn protest against this proceeding. I shall simply content myself with calling for the yeas and nays on this question of reference. I think this subject should be referred, and should be investigated by the Committee on the Judiciary, and that they should report all the facts and the law arising in reference to it, and then the Senate could act with full information on this, to my mind, most grave and important subject. The VICE PRESIDENT. Upon the question of reference the yeas and nays are demanded. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. TRUMBULL. I rise merely to call the attention of the Senate to one or two precedents as to whether a vacancy could be recognized by the

State authority. It will be perceived that these credentials state that Mr. Willey is chosen a Senator to fill the vacancy which has happened by the withdrawal and abdication of James M. Mason. Now, I find, in looking over the volume of Contested Elections, that in 1790, "John Walker, of Virginia, appointed by the Governor in the place of John Mason, who had refused to act, produced his credentials and was admitted to his seat" in the Senate. There the Governor appointed a Senator in the place of one who had refused to act, and the appointee was admitted to the seat. The Senator from Delaware [Mr. SAULSBURY] says these persons have refused to act, but his trouble is that we expelled them last Thursday. We had refused to act before that day; but they need not wait in the State of Virginia till the Senate acts. They could recognize the vacancy. The Governor of Virginia, in 1790, recognized the vacancy occasioned by the refusal to act, and appointed a Senator who submitted his credentials and was sworn in as a member.

Mr. SAULSBURY. If the Senator from Illinois will allow me, the case to which he now refers, from Virginia, was a case where the person appointed had never acted as a Senator; had never been a member of this body. The appointment was tendered to him—that is what I gather from what the Senator reads-and he refused to accept it. He never had been a Senator, and therefore there was no vacancy, so far as he was concerned. He had never been a Senator, and never had a seat to vacate.

Mr. TRUMBULL. Mr. President, it is very clear that, if that were so, the Governor would have had no right to make the appointment. It is only in cases of vacancy that he can appoint; and if the office was never filled, the Executive could not appoint at all.

Mr. SAULSBURY. Will the Senator look at the record and see?

Mr. TRUMBULL. I have read the record to the Senator, and if he had paid attention he would have heard it. Here it is:

"APRIL 25, 1790. John Walker, of Virginia, appointed by the Governor in the place of John Mason, who had refused to act, produced his credentials, and was admitted to his scat."

The Governor of Virginia could not appoint, except in a case where there was a vacancy. Another case will be found which arose in the State of Maryland, in 1791. In that case Mr. Pinckney, who was a member of the House of Representatives, resigned his seat. There is no distinct evidence of the resignation, however; but the Governor of Maryland ordered an election, and a Mr. Mercer was elected. Mr. Giles objected to Mr. Mercer taking his seat, upon this ground. He said:

"Two questions occurred in this business; the one, whether a person appointed to represent his State in Congress has the power of resignation; the other, whether that appointment can be resigned to the Executive of a State government, and whether the Executive be authorized to accept the resignation, and issue a writ for a new election. If the report were received, as it then stood, he observed that it would authorize the Executive of every State to judge of all vacancies, and of the circumstances that may cause vacancies. He hoped the House would take time to consider the subject."

*

*

"Mr. SENEY observed that this was no new case; that there were members sitting in the House who had been elected in lieu of others who had resigned; he adverted to the inconvenience that must ensue to the State of Maryland from the delay, as that State would be deprived of the voice and support of one of her members. He thought it a new and very strange declaration to say that a member had not a right to resign. Such a doctrine must affect the privilege of every free citizen."

On motion, however, the House came to the following resolution:

"Resolved, That John F. Mercer is entitled to take his seat in this House as one of the Representatives from the State of Maryland.”

Thereby deciding that the Governor of Maryland could decide whether there was a vacancy which he could fill. The House of Representatives had not acted upon it. Now, the Legislature of the State of Virginia could decide whether there was a vacancy in that State; whether they had Senators or not. They did decide, on the 9th day of the present month, it is said. We decided that the persons who formerly held the seats were guilty of crimes which justified their expulsion from the Senate, on Thursday. But, sir, that decision has relation, as has been well said by the Senator from Vermont, to the time when they committed the criminal act. The

State of Virginia acted upon them before we did. It is not necessary, in case of a death, that the Senate of the United States should meet, and have official knowledge of the death, and communicate that fact to the Governor of a State, and notify him that a vacancy exists, before the Governor of the State can take official notice of the vacancy, and fill it; or in case of the death of a member of the House of Representatives, the Governor need not wait until Congress convenes, and the Speaker informs him of the vacancy. Neither need the Legislature of Virginia, when her Senators had turned traitors, wait until the Senate of the United States should declare it, and that they were unworthy of seats here; but they had a right to act upon the vacancy, and fill it, which they have done. The fact that we did not take cognizance of the matter until after they acted cannot invalidate an clection which was valid when it was made, even according to the reasoning of the Senator from Delaware; for he says the seats were vacant at that time, and if we had only voted yesterday that they were vacant, why then these persons would be entitled to their seats here. Well, because we voted differently, and expelled the other Senators

Mr. BAYARD. The honorable Senator does not refer to me?

Mr. TRUMBULL. I am referring to the Senator's colleague.

Mr. SAULSBURY. Allow me to correct the Senator. I did not say that then they would be entitled, for I never noticed or referred to the other question behind this question of vacancy. What I said was this: that the Senate of the United States being the judges of the election and qualifications of their own members, day before yesterday, for the first time, passed as judges upon the fact whether Mr. Mason and Mr. Hunter were members of this body; and, by passing a resolution to expel them on that day from the Senate, they recognized them then as members of the Senate. What I said was that, if the Senate had chosen previously to Thursday last to declare these seats vacant, they could have done so under the same power of being judges of the qualifications and election of their own members.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I understood the Senator to say-and I believe he did say-that he would have voted to declare their seats vacant. I believe he did vote on Thursday for such an amendment. Mr. SAULSBURY. I did.

Mr. TRUMBULL. Then, the Senator stands in this position before the country: he voted that their seats were vacant. If they were vacant, then the Legislature of Virginia had a right to fill them. There is no question about that. As to whether this body was the Legislature or not, is not the point that the Senator from Delaware has made. He is sticking us to the time. He wants to send these Senators back to be elected over again to-morrow. The great point which he thinks is to break up the Government, and which is dangerous to the liberties of the country, is, that they were elected the day before yesterday, instead of being elected to-day. That is his great point. Mr. SAULSBURY. If the Senator will allow

me

The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Illinois give way?

Mr. TRUMBULL. After I get through, the Senator can have an opportunity, if he wishes, to reiterate his statement. He voted that the seats were vacant; that the vacancies existed. If the vacancies existed, the legitimate Legislature had the right to fill them. He does not deny that, does he? Then, so far as his point is concerned, it amounts to nothing but simply this: that the Senate has voted to expel them; but, because it did not vote to expel them before, when they deserved it, therefore these gentlemen, who have been elected Senators, must go back and be reelected again, although the cause of the expulsion of the old Senators existed, and although the Legislature of Virginia, the body to elect Senators, determined that they had abdicated their seats.

Mr. SAULSBURY. Only one word more, sir, for the purpose of putting myself right. I hope the Senator from Illinois did not wish to put me in any other position than that which I occupy. There have been two grounds of objection made in this body to these gentlemen taking their seats without a reference of their credentials to the Committee on the Judiciary; for that is the im

mediate question before the Senate, whether the credentials shall be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. One of the points is, that the Senate of the United States having declared, on Thursday, the expulsion of the former Senators from this body, by that vote recognized that on that day the two former Senators were members of this body. There was another ground of objection raised to which I did not refer, and to which I do not choose now to refer, and that was the power of this new Legislature of Virginia to elect Senators upon this floor.

The Senator from Illinois seems to think that he has placed me in a wonderfully inconsistent attitude before the country. His speech, or his attempt at that, would have been very well, if I had had the honor of being an opposing candidate before some popular assemblage for popular suffrage. It falls far short, however, of an argument addressed to cool-headed, clear-headed men, upon questions of law. He seems to think that because I voted the other day to declare the seats vacant, therefore I had declared that they were vacant before that day. Does the fact that I voted on Thursday to declare that the seats were vacant, establish the fact that I voted they were vacant before that day? Now, sir, had the Senator offered a resolution on the first day of this session, or the day after Mr. Mason and Mr. Hunter withdrew from this body, declaring their seats vacant, and I been in this body, I would certainly have voted for it. Why would I have voted for it? Because as one member of this body-which body has the right to decide, as I said before, upon the election and qualifications of its own members-I should' have the right so to vote. But they did not raise the question as to whether Mr. Mason and Mr. Hunter were members of this body until Wednesday. True, I voted on Thursday to declare the seats vacant. The gentlemen on the other side voted not to declare them vacant. Did they mean by that to say that they were not vacant? No; they chose another mode: They chose to vote to expel them. As to the propriety of expulsion, I have only to say, that those Senators ought not, if they had appeared here on Thursday, to have been allowed to take their seats, and the Senate, acting in its capacity of judging whether its members had committed such offenses as to preclude them from a seat on this floor, would have the right to say that they should not take their seats; and I would have so voted, because they now adhere to a State which is in rebellion, as I hold,

to the Government of the United States.

I think, therefore, there is no inconsistency at all in my record; but that there is an inconsistency in the record of the Senator from Illinois, who on Thursday treated these seats as existing, and these gentlemen as members of the body, and voted to expel them. What does he say? That that expulsion may have reference back to some antecedent time. Then, sir, according to the logic of the Senator from Illinois, you can expel a man from this body who had ceased to be a member twenty years ago, and say it related back to that time. That is the Senator's reasoning upon this subject, and as far as I am concerned, he is perfectly welcome to whatever eclat and renown such a mode of argumentation may give him before the country.

In conclusion, Mr. President, I have only to say, that this is a judicial question, as the distinguished Senator from Vermont has said, and a great deal has been said upon it much more appropriate to another theater and upon a different subject. This is a legal, constitutional question. It is not a question to excite popular feeling. It is not a question in the discussion of which these galleries, or the multitude of the great American people, must be addressed. What is the point before the court? Confine your argument to that. I protest against any inference being drawn from what I have said in the discussion of a constitutional question, that I favor the right of the former Senators to seats upon this floor. I declare before God and man, that had they appeared here at the opening of this session, much as I esteem one of those gentlemen, and as kindly as he treated me as a member of this body, I would not have voted them permission to take their seats on this floor; and I never will vote for any other man who has withdrawn from this body and taken part against his Government, to return to be a member of the body, until that sin has been purged.

Mr. BAYARD. Mr. President, I see, at least I fear, with no disrespect to the Senate, that the consideration of the grave question involved in the admission of these gentlemen to the seats on this floor which they claim under these certificates is about to be disposed of now by the majority of the Senate, although I think it would be wise that the regular course should be taken in regard to it. I shall therefore, though entirely unprepared, endeavor to state my views upon it distinctly but briefly; for I do not mean, inasmuch as it is the determination of the majority of the Senate to settle this question now, to detain them.

laws of Virginia? Who is the executive of Virginia? John Letcher was elected the executive of Virginia, and you all know it; and his term of service has not expired, under the constitution and laws of Virginia. What authority can the name of Mr. Pierpont attached to that certificate give to it as an evidence of the act of the executive of Virginia certifying to you that an election has been held? The honorable Senator from California told us that the Legislature were elected on the day fixed by the laws of Virginia, but he forgot to tell us anything about this fact, that no vacancy exists in the office of her Governor. No election for Governor has been held under the laws of the State of Virginia. If Virginia is still a State of the Union you are trampling on her constitution and her laws, if you undertake to recognize as the act of the State of Virginia the act of a small minority of her people. You are running directly counter to your own doctrine, with respect to the rights of the States of this Union as against the General Government.

I

There are two questions involved in this matter. The minor one, and far the minor one, is, whether these seats-without reference at all to the much graver question-were vacant when this election took place, supposing the body making the election to be the lawful Legislature of Virginia after the vacancy occurred in the body. Now, sir, what is the question there? It is very simple. A Senator of the United States is elected for a fixed term of six years. He can be removed in but two ways against his will. He may resign|| at any time; and his resignation is made to the Governor of his State. The act of resignation vacates the seat in itself. He may die. Death vacates the seat, and the Governor can appoint if the Legislature is not in session; but no Legislature of a State, no Governor of a State, can undertake to terminate his office during the term for which he is elected by any action of theirs. Though elected by the Legislature, he is not within their control as regards his office. The control over that office is in the Senate of the United States. The Senate may expel a member. If the House of Representatives impeach,him, the Senate may judicially condemn him, and so vacate his office; but the seat is not vacant without resig-said, creating an insurrection in that State, or nation, without death, without expulsion, or without a verdict according to the judgment of the Senate vacating the seat under the result of an impeachment.

Sir, nothing of this kind has happened in this case; but the Senate of the United States, on the 11th day of this month, did vacate the seats by expelling those members from the body. I have no doubt of the right of the Senate to vacate the seats by their order, but the Senate alone could do it. On what authority or principle could the Legislature of Virginia, supposing it to be a perfectiy valid Legislature-supposing it to be a legal Legislature, which we were bound to recognize undertake, in anticipation of such an act, before the act had been taken, to elect Senators when there were Senators still having a right to their seats, though those Senators might not be present in this body; though those Senators might be charged with crime of any character? It is not for the Legislature to determine that the charge of crime constitutes a vacating of the seat. The Senate alone can undertake to determine that. If, then, there was no vacancy, there was no authority, either in the Governor, during the recess of the Legislature, to appoint, the term having commenced and been filled; nor was there any authority in the Legislature, when in session, to elect other Senators, until after the 11th day of July. I desire to have the action of the Committee on the Judiciary on that point.

The next, and graver question is this: whether you have in this certificate anything you can acknowledge, on the facts you are judicially to notice, that would give any one a title to a seat in this Senate, and to vacate seats. As I stated to the Senate at its special session, my theory and doctrine is, that though the act of a State withdrawing from the Union, or secession, is an act of revolution, is a breach of that compact upon which this Government is founded; though it gives, if without reason-and we have the right to judge of that—just cause of war, yet in its effect it puts the State out of the Union. Therefore, according to my theory, there could be no Senator from Virginia in this body until, by war, you have compelled her to return to her allegiance to this Government. I understand your view of the Constitution to be, that the State is still in the Union; that you mean to execute the laws; that you mean to repress the insurrection. Can you, consistently with the Constitution of the United States, if that State is still in the Union, refuse to recognize judicially, as your courts all do, what is the constitution of Virginia? What are the

Mr. President, I will not pursue this argument further, because I never yet believed that it was worth while to persist against an unquestioned majority in a contest on any matter, the moment I saw what the development of things was. have the right to ask a vote of the Senate. If they choose so to decide, of course, being the majority, the responsibility rests with them. But, in my conscientious conviction, on your own theory, you are violating the Constitution of the United States when you undertake to recognize the existence of Mr. Pierpont as the executive of Virginia, when no law of Virginia has authorized his election as Governor; when the constitution of Virginia has never authorized his election as Governor; that you are in this case, as I

acknowledging an insurrection in that State; while on my theory, the State, by revolution and the action of her people, being out of the Union, df course no Senator from Virginia can take his seat on this floor. It was on that ground that I was willing to declare the seats of these gentlemen vacant; but I did not think it necessary to expel

them.

Now, sir, I know very well that it is a very unpleasant thing to stand in opposition to a large majority of the body of which you are a member, and more especially during an excited state of feeling in the country, and when the majority of the people have sustained the general course of the party to which you are opposed; but a man is bound to carry out his honest views and his convictions of the structure of the form of his Government. As regards this particular question, it has nothing to do with war measures whatever. It will not restore the State of Virginia one hour sooner to this Union; it will not prevent bloodshed; it will not have any available effect upon this war; and yet it is trampling upon the Constitution. If you expect to maintain this Union by trampling on the Constitution, I think you will fall into a great error as to the result of your action.

Sir, I am not in the habit of making professions. I believe I have loved and do love this Union, and prize its value as much as any man who sits upon this floor. I may differ from them in regard to the state of revolution and civil war that now exists, and what is the wisest course for the peace and happiness of my country in the future.

may believe that it is better to let a portion of this Confederacy sever from us, than to run the risk, by civil war, of consolidating this nation into a single government, which inevitably ends in a military and unrestrained despotism. I think so, honestly. I challenge the motives and I impugn the character of no man that differs from me as to that; but I should be false to every principle of my nature; I should be false to my own sense of duty to my country, whether I stood alone here, or whether I had a large majority to back me by their votes, if I feared to utter and defend those sentiments which I think alone can preserve this Government from utter subversion.

Mr. TEN EYCK. A word, sir, and but a word; for I would not stand for a minute in the way of the restoration of Virginia to her ancient rights and dignity.

I rejoice that the Senator from Kentucky has called for the yeas and nays; but for a different reason from that which influences him. He be

The bill provides for a loan of $250,000,000, in the manner suggested in the report of the Secretary of the Treasury.

The first amendment of the Finance Committee was in line eight of section one, to strike out the words "certificate of," and after "coupon❞ insert "bonds;" so as to make it read:

For which he is authorized to issue coupon bonds.
The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was, in the ninth line of the first section, to strike out "stock," and insert "bonds."

The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was, in line ten of the same section, to strike out "stock," and insert "bonds."

The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was in line sixteen of the same section, to strike out "three years after,' and insert "at the pleasure of the United States at any time after three years;" so as to make the clause read:

The Treasury notes to be of any denomination fixed by the Secretary of the Treasury, not less than fifty dollars, and to be payable at the pleasure of the United States at any time after three years.

The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was in the same section, line twenty-six, to insert "payable in one year from date;" so as to make the clause read:

And the Secretary of the Treasury may also issue, in exchange for coin aud as part of the above loan, or may pay for salaries or other dues from the United States, Treasury notes of a less denomination than fifty dollars, not bearing interest, but payable on demand by the assistant treasurers of the United States at Philadelphia, New York, or Boston, or Treasury notes bearing interest at the rate of three and sixty-five hundredths per cent., payable in one year from date.

The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was in line twenty-seven of the same section, to strike out "certificates of stock;" so as to make it read:

Or Treasury notes, bearing interest at the rate of three and sixty-five hundredths per cent., payable in one year from date, and exchangeable at any time for Treasury notes for fifty dollars and upwards, &c.

The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was in line twenty-eight of the same section, to strike out "issued," and insert" issuable."

The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was in line thirty of the same section, to strike out "such" before " change."

The amendment was agreed to.

ex

The next amendment was in section two, line two, to strike out "certificates of stock," and insert "bonds."

The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was in line three of section two, to insert "or second" after "first;" so as to make it read:

That the Treasury notes and bonds issued under the provisions of this act shall be signed by the First or Second Comptroller, or the Register of the Treasury, &c.

The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was in line four of section two, after the word "and," to insert " signed;" so as to read:

counter

And countersigned by such other officer or officers of the Treasury as the Secretary of the Treasury may designate. The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was in section two, line eight, to strike out "stock," and insert "bonds." The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was in line nine of section two, to strike out" of the certificate," and insert "thereof."

The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was in section two, line ten, to strike out "stock," and insert "bonds." The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was in line twelve of section two to insert" or executed in such manner;" so as to make the clause read:

The interest coupons may be signed by such person or persons, or executed in such manner as may be designated by the Secretary of the Treasury.

The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was in section three, line forty-one, to strike out "forty millions;" and in

66

sert one hundred millions;" so as to make the clause read:

And the Secretary of the Treasury is also authorized, if he shall deem expedient, before opening books of subscription as above provided, to exchange for coin, or pay for public dues or for Treasury notes of the issue of 23d of December 1857, and falling due on the 30th of June 1861, or for Treasury notes issued and taken in exchange for such notes, any amount of said Treasury notes for fifty dollars or upwards, not exceeding $100,000,000.

The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was to strike out the word "he" in the fourteenth line of the fourth section. The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was in the fifth section, line four, after the word "country," to insert "and payable at any designated place either in the United States or in Europe;" so as to make the section read:

That the Secretary of the Treasury may, if he deem it advisable, negotiate any portion of said loan, not exceeding $100,000,000, in any foreign country, and payable at any designated place either in the United States or in Europe. The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was in line four of section five, to insert "registered or coupon," before "bonds," and to strike out 66 or certificate of stock;" so as to make it read: And may issue registered or coupon bonds for the amount thus negotiated.

The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was in line six, of section five, to strike out "the" and insert "bearing," so as to read:

Bearing interest payable semi-annually.
The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was in section six, line six, to strike out "stock," and insert "bonds." The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was in section seven, line seven, to strike out "stock, "and insert "bonds." The amendment was agreed to.

The next amendment was to strike out of section eight the following words:

And for the full and punctual payment of the interest the United States specially pledges the duties of impost on tea, coffee, sugar, spices, wines and liquors, and also such excise and other internal duties or taxes as may be received into the Treasury.

So as to make it read:

SEC. 8. And be it further enacted, That the faith of the United States is hereby solemnly pledged for the payment of the interest and redemption of the principal of the loan authorized by this act.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. SAULSBURY. I propose, in line six, of section one, to strike out the word "two," and insert the word "one;" so as to make the loan $150,000,000, instead of $250,000,000. My renson for this motion is that the annual session of Congress is only about five months off, and $150,000,000 if borrowed will certainly be sufficient until the next session of Congress, when, if a further amount be needed, it will be perfectly competent to the Congress of the United States to authorize an additional loan. I am willing to vote what I consider necessary; but I do not consider it proper to anticipate the wants of the Government. One hundred and fifty million dollars certainly will be ample until the next session of Congress; and if the Administration should want more at that time, it will have a majority of friends in both Houses of Congress, and they will be able to pass a bill authorizing an additional loan.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I have only to say, Mr. President, that the bill is based upon the estimates of the Secretary of the Treasury, as to the sum that will be absolutely necessary to pay the expenses of the year. It is perfectly evident that if that is to be borrowed, both in this country and in Europe, we ought to lose no time in making preparations to get the money. It is only wasting the time, and doubling the expense, to go in for one half now, and five months hence apply for the other half. The bill authorizes the Secretary to borrow that amount, or so much as may be necessary. If anything should occur to lessen the expenditure, he will not be obliged to borrow it. Therefore, I think we run no risk; and in fact it is altogether better at once to come up to the sum that we know we shall need for the year, and not have the work to do over again at the next session of Congress. that

Mr. SAULSBURY. I know, of course,

my amendment will not be adopted; but as I desire to put my vote on the record, I ask for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered; and being taken, resulted-yeas 4, nays 36; as follows: YEAS-Messsrs.-Johnson of Missouri, Polk, Powell, and Saulsbury-4.

NAYS-Messrs. Anthony, Bingham, Browning, Carlile, Chandler, Clark, Collamer, Cowan, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Grimes, Hale, Harlan, Harris, Howe, Johnson of Tennessee, King, Lane of Indiana, Lane of Kansas, Latham, McDougall, Morrill, Nesmith, Pomeroy, Rice, Simmons, Summer, Ten Eyck, Wade, Wilkinson, Willey, Wilmot, and Wilson-36.

So the amendment was rejected.

The bill was reported to the Senate as amended. Mr. FESSENDEN. Before the question is taken on adopting the amendments in Committee of the Whole, which will probably be taken as a whole, an amendment has been suggested to me which I wish to consider; and I therefore move that the bill lie on the table for the present. I will call it up again.

The motion was agreed to.

HOUSE BILL REFERRED.

The bill (No. 28) to authorize the employment of volunteers to aid in supporting and defending the Government of the United States was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia.

INCREASE OF THE ARMY.

On motion of Mr. WILSON, the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the bill (S. No. 2) to increase the present military establishment of the United States.

The bill proposes to add to the regular Army, as now authorized by law, nine regiments of infantry, one regiment of cavalry, and one regiment of artillery, to be organized in the manner indicated in the presidential proclamation of last May, with four major generals and six brigadier generals.

The bill was reported from the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia, with an amendment striking out the fifth section, which is in the following words:

SEC. 5. And be it further enacted. That the President of the United States be, and he is hereby, authorized to add to the present regiment of dragoons, inounted riflemen, cavalry, artillery, and infantry of the regular Army, as many officers and enlisted men as may make their respective organizations the same as those of the additional regiments of cavalry, artillery, and infantry, authorized by this act, and that the commissions of the officers of the old regiments who may be promoted thereby shall bear equal date with those officers promoted to the additional regiments. The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. KING. I have an amendment to offer, which is not drawn up in the section I now present as entirely complete as I should like to have it; but I present it in this shape to test the sense of the Senate as to the propriety of imposing the limitation which I propose:

And be it further enacted, That the increase of the military establishment created or authorized by this act is declared to be for service during the existing insurrection and rebellion; and within six months after the constitutional authority of the Government of the United States shall be reestablished, and organized resistance to such authority shall no longer exist, the military establishment shall be reduced to the number, grade, rank, and pay authorized by law on the 1st day of May, 1861.

The provision is entirely plain to the comprehension of every Senator, and does not require any discussion. I understand that the chairman of the Military Committee, of which I am a member, is prepared to accept the proposition as an addition to the bill.

Mr. WILSON. I will not resist the adoption of it. The Senator presents the proposition and gets the vote of the Senate upon it. I shall not stand in the way.

Mr. KING. I hope it will meet the approbation of the Senate.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. KING. I now propose another amendment, to complete the proposition:

And be it further enacted, That the President of the United States shall cause regiments, battalions, and companies, to be disbanded, and officers, non-commissioned officers, and musicians, to be discharged, so as to reduce the military establishment as is provided by the next preceding section.

Mr. HARRIS. I do not propose to discuss this question. If Senators think fit so to modify this bill, of course it is not for me to attempt to resist it; but I will say that I am surprised that