THIRTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION.

general election in June; and two years from that time, at the general Presidential election-making the election of a member of Congress every alternative two years simultaneous with the presidential election, and the other alternative two years at the general election in June.

The Senate of the State of Oregon passed a similar bill, with this difference: that it should not apply to this Congress. The two Houses differed upon that point, and there was no election at all.

The committee would have had no difficulty in coming to the conclusion at which they have arrived, that the time of holding an election for Representative in Congress in Oregon was fixed by the constitution of that State at the general election to be held on the first Monday in June, and that same constitution having provided that the first of those elections should be upon the first Monday in June, 1858, that the next election would be upon the first Monday in June, 1860, the time when the contestant was elected, had it not been for this action by the Legislature of Oregon, which, although it never took the form of law, was still such action as left upon the minds of the committee the impression that the Legislature of Oregon, notwithstanding this provision of their constitution, did come to the conclusion that they had control of this matter. However, as cach House must judge for itself, and cannot permit any other body to pass judgment for it of the right of any man to a seat, it nevertheless comes back to the House to place a construction upon this provision of the constitution; and with all due respect to the gentlemen who compose the the Legislature of Oregon, although they failed to put their views in the form of law, the committee could come to no other conclusion than that which I have stated to the House, and in which all the committee concurred, namely, that the constitution of Oregon provides for the election of a member of Congress at the time and in the manner in which the contestant was elected; and that therefore he is entitled to the seat.

Mr. McCLERNAND. I would inquire of the gentleman from Massachusetts whether there is any minority report in this case?

Mr. DAWES. There is none. I stated to the House that the committee were unanimous in this report.

Mr. THAYER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to be heard on this question before it is passed upon by this House. I am aware that it is a difficult matter for me to make any kind of headway against the report of the committee who have decided adversely to what I claim to be right in the premises. I only desire that the House should take into consideration certain facts and certain principles connected with this matter, before they pass upon it.

In the first place, the fourth section of the Constitution of the United States provides that

"The times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but Congress may, at any time, by law, make or alter such regulations, except as to the place of choosing Senators."

The House will bear in mind that this clause of the Constitution provides that the times, places, and manner of holding elections in the several States for Representatives in Congress, shall be prescribed by the Legislature of each State. There is no provision in the Constitution, that a constitutional convention has the power or the right to fix the times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives. I hold, Mr. Speaker, that this clause of the Constitution is imperative, and that a convention which frames a constitution for a State has no power to fix the time and place for holding elections for Representatives and Senators, but that they must be prescribed by the Legislature of the State. The Legislative Assembly of the State of Oregon has never provided by law, except in one instance, for the election of a Representative in Congress.

The claim of Mr. Sheil to the right to a seat upon this floor is predicated upon the sixth sec

FRIDAY, AUGUST 2, 1861.

tion of the schedule to the constitution of the State of Oregon, which, I claim, was special, and was fulfilled and had its termination when the first election was held under that schedule. The object of that sixth section to the schedule to the constitution of Oregon was to fix the time when the first election should be held under and by virtue of that constitution. I claim that the convention had no power to fix the time for any other election except the first that should be held under that constitution, because the Constitution of the United States expressly provides that the times and places of holding elections for Senators and Representatives in Congress shall be fixed by the Legislature of a State, and not by a constitutional convention. The clause of the Constitution of the United States is specific; and I undertake to say, and firmly believe, that the convention who framed the constitution of Oregon had no other object in view except to fix the time when the first election should be held. The sixth section to the schedule to the constitution of Oregon reads as follows:

"If this constitution shall be ratified, an election shall be held on the first Monday in June, 1858, for the election of members of the Legislative Assembly, a Representative in Congress, and State and county officers; and the Legislative Assembly shall convene at the capital on the first Monday in July, 1858, and proceed to elect two Sepators in Congress, and make such further provisions as may be necessary to the complete organization of a State government."

The only object and design of that clause of the schedule was to fix the time when the first election should be held. It was not calculated or designed to reach any other election.

Again, Mr. Speaker, the election of the other officers named in that section, and the time for the meeting of the Legislative Assembly of the State of Oregon, are provided for in other parts of the constitution; but the time of electing a Representative to Congress is nowhere mentioned in the constitution of the State of Oregon, aside from this section of the schedule. If the convention had designed to fix the time for holding the election of members of Congress, they would have done as they have done in the case of the election of these other officers, and the meeting of the Legislative Assembly of the State. But they never contemplated any such thing. In sections three and four of article four of the constitution of Oregon || the time of holding the elections of State senators and representatives is pointed out. It is therein provided that senators and representatives shall be chosen by the electors of the respective counties or districts into which the State may, from time to time, be divided by law; and that the senators shall be elected for a term of four years, and representatives for a term of two years, from the day next after the general election. The time for the first general election is fixed by the sixth section of the schedule, and State senators are to be elected four years after that time, and representatives two years after that time. That points out the times and places when they shall be elected. Again, section six of article six of the State constitution provides for the election of the various county officers at the time of holding the general election; and the time of their election is also pointed out in another clause. So in regard to the time for the assembling of the Legislature; that is pointed out by the constitution itself; but nowhere in the constitution of the State is there

any provision for the reelection of a Representative in Congress.

Again, Mr. Speaker, the idea that a Representative in Congress shall be elected eighteen months prior to the time when he is usually called upon to take his seat in the House of Representatives, in my judgment, is unreasonable. We all know how political issues in the States change. We all know the various changes which take place in relation to the political issues which arise in the different States.

It is an old and fixed principle that men shall be elected to represent the people at as recent a date as possible before called upon to perform their duties; but according to the rule laid down

NEW SERIES.....No. 23.

by the committee in this case, and according to its determination on the subject, we are bound to elect a man eighteen months prior to the time when he is to enter on the discharge of his duties. I hold that the convention which framed a constitution for Oregon never contemplated any such thing, and never desired to establish any such rule.

Again, Mr. Speaker, it is alleged that because section four of article two of the constitution of Oregon provides that general elections shall be held on the first Monday of June, biennially, Mr. Shiel has a right to a seat on this floor, in consequence of his having been chosen at that general election. If that provision had alleged affirmatively that the Representative in Congress should be elected at a general election, then there would have been force and reason in this conclusion. But it does not do so. It does provide for the election of all other officers; and, in other sections of the constitution the time for the meeting of the Legislative Assembly is provided for.

Again, Mr. Speaker, if the constitution of the State of Oregon does provide for the election of a Representative in Congress at general elections, as alleged on behalf of Mr. Sheil, then I claim that the Legislature which convened in May, 1859, and passed a special law on the subject, acted unconstitutionally. The first section of an act approved on the first Monday in June, 1859, provides that there shall be held, at the several places of holding elections in that State, on Monday, the 27th of June, 1859, a special election for one Representative in Congress, and an assessor for each county, and such other officers as are by law authorized to be elected. If the constitution is as alleged on behalf of Mr. Shiel, then the Legislature which passed that act did what was unconstitutional and void. Many of the members of the Legislature had been in the convention which framed the constitution, and must have been supposed to understand the true intent and meaning of the constitution. It is not to be assumed that they would pass a law which is unconstitutional, and in conflict with the spirit and meaning of the constitution. But they did not so understand it. They passed this law in good faith. They did not understand that the constitution of the State of Oregon had provided that the Representative in Congress should be elected at general elections. There is no provis ion of that character in the constitution,

Again, Mr. Speaker, it is claimed that Mr. Sheil has another right to a seat on this floor; and that right is predicated on another clause of the constitution and on a territorial law. Section seven of the schedule to the constitution provides that all laws in force in the Territory of Oregon when the constitution takes effect, and consistent therewith, shall continue in force until altered or repealed. It is claimed that, under this section, the territorial law authorized the election of a Rep resentative in Congress at a general election on the first Monday of June, 1860. By an examination of the territorial law it will be found that a general election was held annually on the first Monday in June. The organic law of the Territory provided that a Delegate in Congress, the only officer bearing any similarity to a Representative in Congress, should be elected at a time to be fixed by the Governor of the Territory, The first election under that law was held in 1849, by virtue of a proclamation of the Governor, and Mr. Thurston was elected Delegate. During the same year, the Territorial Legislature provided by law that a Delegate in Congress should be elected biennially, and that the next election should be held on the first Monday in June, 1851. In pursuance of that law General Lane was elected on the first Monday of June, 1851, 1853, 1855, and 1857, as Delegate to Congress. Now, I claim that the territorial law was not consistent with the constitution of the State of Oregon, because it directed the election to be held in a different year from that in which Mr, Sheil was elected. The Legislature which convened in May, 1859, must have looked upon it as inconsistent with the

constitution of the State, or they would not have passed a law requiring a special election to be held on the 27th June, at which time Mr. Stout was elected a Representative from that State. I therefore come to the conclusion that there was no authority in the constitution of the State of Oregon, and no authority by virtue of the. territorial law which existed prior to the adoption of the constitution, for an election to be held on the first Monday of June, 1860, the time when Mr. Shiel claims to have been elected.

Again: Mr. Speaker, it is claimed that Mr. Sheil has a certificate of election, entitling him to a seat on this floor. By an examination of the territorial law, it will be found that he has no such certificate as is pointed out by law, and has no right to a seat here by virtue of any certificate that he holds. Section twenty-two of the Oregon laws provides that the clerk of the board of county commissioners shall, immediately after collecting the abstracts of votes, copy each abstract and transmit them by mail to the secretary of the Territory, at the seat of government; and makes it the duty of the secretary of the Territory, with the marshal of the Territory, or his deputy, in pres

ence of the Governor, to proceed, within thirty

days after the election, to canvass the votes given for Delegate to Congress; and directs that the Governor shall give a certificate of election to the person having the highest number of votes, and also to issue a proclamation declaring the election of such person.

There has been no such certificate issued to Mr. Sheil. He does not come here armed with such a document. The Governor has never made the proclamation required in the section. He comes here simply with a certified copy of the abstract of the votes cast on that occasion, certified to by the secretary of State, not by the Governor, as is provided by the thirty-second section of the laws of Oregon. But it is claimed that because he was voted for at a general election, and because Mr. Logan was a candidate against him, he has a right to a seat on this floor, in consequence of his having received more votes than Mr. Logan. The only right that Mr. Sheil has to a seat on this floor is predicated on the constitution, and on the territorial law which existed prior to the formation of that constitution. I claim that the constitution of Oregon has not provided, and could not provide, consistently with the Constitution of the United States, for an election of Representative in Congress, after the holding of the first election. It had no power to fix the time for such election, because the Constitution of the United States is imperative that the Legislature, not the State convention, shall do that. When the Legislature passed the special law referred to, they must have understood that there was no territorial law authorizing the election of a Representative in Congress on the first Monday in June. Otherwise they never would have passed a law requiring a special election to be held on the 27th of June, 1859, by virtue of which Mr. Stout was elected a Representative, and served here for the period of two years.

This entire case is predicated upon the constitutionality of an election under which the contestant claims his seat upon this floor. I claim that the constitution and the law are in favor of my right to the seat.

on the present occasion under somewhat peculiar circumstances. I came here having no personal acquaintance with any member of this House save Mr. ELY, of New York. I placed all my papers in his hands, and placed my whole case in his hands, he having very kindly consented to take charge of the matter on my part. Since that time, he has been captured by the rebels who are making war upon the United States, and I have been unable to obtain several papers which I deem important in this case. I therefore desire that this matter may be recommitted to the Committee of Elections, so that there may be a further opportunity to investigate the matter-which, under the circumstances, I think may very properly be done -before coming to a final decision in the case. And, if the matter is permitted to be considered thoroughly, I am confident the committee themselves will come to view the matter in a different light from that in which it is presented in their report to the House,

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE.

A message from the Senate, by Mr. PATTON, one of their clerks, announced that the Senate had passed the bill of the House (No. 54) to provide increased revenue from imports, to pay interest on the public debt, and for other purposes, with amendments, in which he was directed to ask the concurrence of the House.

Mr. STEVEŊS. I move that the House nonconcur in the amendments of the Senate, and ask for a committee of conference.

The motion was agreed to.

OREGON CONTESTED ELECTION-AGAIN.

Mr. SHEIL, (contestant.) Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to submit any remarks to the House upon the merits of this contest, but leave it to the action of the House upon the case as made up and presented upon the report of the Committee of Elections. But after certain remarks made by the sitting member, I feel it to be my duty to refer, as briefly as possible, to the sections of the constitution of the State of Oregon upon which I base the legality of my election to a seat upon this floor.

special election held in 1859, the State of Oregon would have been unrepresented in the first session of the Thirty-Sixth Congress. To provide for that emergency, a special session of the Legislature was called in 1859. The act providing for the special election I will now read:

An act to provide for a special election. Be in enacted by the Legislative Assembly of the State of Oregon, That there shall be held, at the several places of holding elections in this State, on Monday, the 27th day of June, 1859, a special election for one Representative in Congress, and an assessor for each county in this State, and such other officers as are by law authorized to be elected. SEC. 2. The clerks of the several counties shall, upon the receipt of official information of the passage of this act, as hereinafter provided, make out and deliver to the sheriff of his county three written notices thereof for each election precinct in such county, which shall be forthwith posted up in three of the most public places in each of said precincts. And in all other respects, said election shall be conducted, and the returns thereof made, in accordance with the laws regulating general elections.

SEC. 3. This act shall be published by the State printer in the newspaper by him published, immediately after its passage, and a copy of said paper containing the same shall shall be immediately forwarded to the county clerk of each county in this State.

SEC. 4. The county clerk of each county shall immediately make up and forward to the judges of election in the several precincts of their respective counties, or the persons who acted as such at the June election, 1858, the necessary poll-books, as required by law; and in case any of such judges neglect or refuse to act, the vacancies shall be filled in the manner prescribed by law, regulating gen-

The language of that act clearly indicates the law which is to govern the holding of that election.

I will read from the constitution, beginning with the section which continues in force the old territorial law, until such time as that law may be altered or repealed by the direct action of the State Legislature. I read the seventh section of article eighteen of the constitution of Oregon. It is as follows:

"All laws in force in the Territory of Oregon when the constitution takes effect, and consistent therewith, shall continue in force until altered or repealed."

That section continues in force the territorial law on the subject of elections, of which the fol

"A general election shall be held in the several election precincts in this territory, on the first Monday of Jun in each year, at which there shall be chosen so many of the following officers as are by law to be elected in such year; that is to say: A Delegate to Congress, members of the Territorial Council and House of Representatives, judges of probate, district attorneys, county superintendents, county commissioners, sheriffs, county treasurers, coroners, justices of the peace, county assessors, constables, and all other county precinct and district officers not herein enumerated or otherwise provided for."

The constitution of the State of Oregon, which to-day is in full force in that State, was adopted on the 9th day of November, 1857. Since that time no section, article, or paragraph, of that instrument, has been repealed, modified, amended, or altered in any shape or form. Hence the provisions of this constitution, which I am about to quote, are not provisions which have been adopted lowing is section three: since November, 1857. That constitution provides that, in case of its adoption by the people, the first general election should be held on the first Monday in June, 1858, for the purpose of electing members of the Legislative Assembly, a Representative in Congress, and State and county officers. Every officer, State and county, that Oregon has had from 1858 until the present, was elected in accordance with the provisions of that constitution. But if the constitutional convention which framed that instrument had no power to prescribe the manner of holding elections, then all these officers were not duly elected, and every act of that Legislature is a nullity, and every act performed by the State or county officers has been without legal authority. But, sir, that question is not raised here. The unanimous consent of the people sanctions and sustains those officers and the laws.

At the general election in June, 1860, every officer that is in office to-day in that State was elected. The Legislature which elected the present Senators from Oregon-Mr. NESMITH and Colonel BAKER was elected under the same constitutional

If this House is to carry out the rule adopted by this report, then they are bound to declare elected the man who is elected on the first Monday in November, 1862; but if they are to regard the provisions of the Constitution of the United States, then they are compelled to carry out the action of the Legislature, and declare elected the man who receives the majority of votes at the regular election, on the first Monday in June, 1863. Hence, I repeat, if this report is adopted, the people of Oregon will be placed in equally great uncertainty as they have been in the past. Mr. Speaker, I have appeared before the House

that election aside, vitiates the election of all these other officers. If I was not duly and legally elected, then the election of the Senators from my State is void, and Oregon has no legal representatives in this House and the Senate of the United States. Here, then, Mr. Speaker, are these two points: the first general election in Oregon was held on the first Monday of June, 1858, and, in pursuance of the same provision of the constitution, the second general election of that State was held in 1860. But there was an intervening election provided for by the Legislature in 1859. It has been very correctly stated, by the chairman of the Committee of Elections, that as our general elections were biennial, if there had not been a

From 1848 to 1854 voting was done by ballot; but since the latter date the viva voce has been used in all general and special elections. The first section of the amendment is as follows:

"Be it enacted by the Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Oregon, That the votes given at all general and special elections hereafter held in this Territory shall be given viva voce, or by ticket handed to the judges, and shall in both cases be cried in an audible voice, by the officer attending, and noted by the clerks in the presence and hearing of the voters."

Here, then, sir, is the law which was in force in the Territory of Oregon, on the first Monday in June, 1858; and by virtue of the clause of the constitution I have read, continuing in force, all laws consistent with that constitution, we find that that law stands upon the record as a part of the constitution. It is recognized by the constitution, and is perhaps higher than any State daw which could be made in obedience to the constitution. That law substitutes the viva voce for the the ballot system of voting. I will hereafter speak of the surreptitious manner in which the sitting member received his votes. The law, then, Mr. Speaker, in force to-day, and which was in force in 1858-the law which was established in 1854, is the law under which I received my votes as a member to this Congress.

Mr. THAYER. I would like to inquire what the gentleman means, when he talks of the surreptitious manner in which I got votes.

Mr. SHEIL. I will inform the gentleman on that matter when I come to it. It is not yet in my line of argument.

Again: it is contended by the sitting member, that there is no authority for the election which was held in 1858. I have read that part of the constitution which provides for and regulates such an election, under the seventh section of article eighteen. Still further, I will read the first section of the schedule. It is as follows:

"For the purpose of taking the vote of the electors of the State for the acceptance or rejection of this Constitution, an election shall be held on the second Monday of November, in the year 1857, to be conducted according to existing laws regulating the election of Delegate in Congress, so far as applicable, except as herein otherwise provided."

Here we have the fact that the constitution, the supreme law of the State of Oregon, was adopted by the citizens of that State in conformity with the provisions of a law in force for five years before, on the subject of congressional elections. My . certificate shows the character and result of the election of June, 1860. It shows that I received a majority of the legal votes cast at that election; and the section sixteen, of article two, of this constitution, settles the question of right between the gentleman and myself to a seat on this floor, so far as that instrument is concerned. That constitution declares, that in all elections held by the people of Oregon the person or persons who shall receive the highest number of votes shall be declared to be duly elected. Here, then, at a genéral election held in conformity with law, and in obedience to the constitution, it is admitted that I received a majority of the votes cast. No fraud was alleged; and, sir, I claim to be the regularly and legally elected member from the State of Oregon.

So much in regard to my constitutional rights to a seat upon this floor. I now approach the consideration of the method by which the sitting member received 4,099 votes out of a poll of 14,500 given at the presidential election in 1860. The law of election in Oregon, as I have already stated, prescribes the viva voce mode of voting. The sitting member received 4,099 votes-in conformity with law? no, sir; but in open violation of the constitution and the law. The constitution prescribes that in all elections the vote shall be given openly and viva voce. That is the method adopted in all general and special elections. The sitting member received a certain number of votes at the November election, in 1860, and the mode and manner of receiving them I will endeavor to explain and expose. Upon the ballots for presidential electors in the State of Oregon of one party, at the foot of the list the name of A. G. Thayer, as I have once before stated, was surreptitiously inserted as a candidate for Congress. I am particular in qualifying my language.

Mr. THAYER. I would inquire whether or not the votes which were cast for me in November, 1860, were not viva voce the same as upon the ballots ?

Mr. SHEIL. I must appeal to the gentleman's knowledge of our State law. He knows that no judge can take a ballot that is folded. The law requires the calling out of the names in a bold and distinct voice.

Mr. THAYER. Does the gentleman undertake to say before this House that the voters who voted for me in November, 1860, did not call out their votes? Does he wish to be understood that they did not vote for me in the same way that they did for electors?

Mr. SHEIL. I cannot say anything which does not affect the issue. I cannot say that every individual who voted for Mr. Thayer voted a closed ticket. I am satisfied, however, that many, to my personal knowledge, did so. That mode of voting is in direct conflict with the law of elections in Oregon to-day, and which prevailed there in 1860. Apart from any authority which the sitting member may derive from votes thus obtained, and with all the suspicion that must necessarily attach to them, there is no honor in the world which would tempt me to imitate him.

Mr. Speaker, as it is a part of the res gesta of this contest, I must be permitted to refer to another matter. Mr. Thayer claims to be, or he did in Oregon, a member of the Douglas party. I hold in my hand the action of the Douglas convention, which assembled in Eugene City. That convention was called for the purpose of nom

inating an electoral ticket for the Douglas party. Among other things, a resolution was introduced authorizing the State central committee of that party to nominate a candidate for Congress, provided the State Legislature would create a vacancy. The State Legislature refused to disturb the election in June previous; and consequently the power conferred upon the State central committee never vested, for the reason that the contingency never happened. Yet, in opposition to the direct and expressed will of that convention, a few individuals met in a certain printing office at Salem, and assumed the right to represent eleven absent members, and to nominate the gentleman as a candidate for Congress.

Worse than that; the committee published an address to the people of Oregon, from which I shall read one sentence. The first sentence of the address announced what was not true:

"That by virtue of the power vested in us by the Democratic State convention, held at Eugene City on the 19th of September, 1860, we have this day nominated A. J. Thayer as a candidate for Representative in the ThirtySeventh Congress."

That is the first sentence of the address. Now, I will give the substance of a resolution upon the subject passed by the Douglas convention, which was held on the 19th of September, 1850.

"Resolved, That the Democratic State central committee is authorized to nominate a candidate for any office which may be made vacant by the present Legislature."

Here this State convention, for the purpose of avoiding a second convention within a month, vested the State central committee of that party with the power to nominate a candidate for Congress, in case the Legislature should declare the election of June, 1860, void. However unwarrantable such an act might have been, such was the case and such was the intention. In opposition to that limited authority, eight membersless than half of that committee-nominated Mr. Thayer for Representative in the Thirty-Seventh Congress. Such an act of not only bad faith, but of flagrant usurpation, must necessarily vitiate such a nomination. any right which the gentleman might claim under There was no authority given to the State central committee to name any man as a candidate for Congress, save in the contingency that the Legislature should annul the election in June. So much for that point.

I will now, very briefly, call the attention of members to the canvass of the votes received by Mr. Thayer and others at that election, certified to by the Governor, and then compare the minutes of the Governor with the certificate which the gentleman holds to-day:

STATE OF OREGON, $s:

I, Lucien Heath, secretary of State of the State aforesaid, do hereby certify that at the late presidential election within and for the State aforesaid, held on the 6th day of November, A. D. 1860, A. J. Thayer was a candidate for Representative to the Thirty-Seventh Congress of the United States of America, and received at said election 4,099 votes, it being a majority of all the votes cast. He was therefore elected a member of said Congress.

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the seal of the State of Oregon, [L. S.] at Salem, this 22d day of March, A. D. 1861. LUCIEN HEATH, Secretary of State. And that, too, when there was not another individual before the people of Oregon as a candidate for Congress. Out of 14,500 votes he received only 4,099; and yet this gentleman comes here and claims a seat upon this floor, unsupported even by a majority of votes cast at that election. What would those 4,099 votes mean if the citizens of Oregon had the right to come up and intelligently and knowingly express their will for Mr. Thayer?

Mr. THAYER. I rise to a question of order. I desire to call the attention of the Speaker and of the House to the fact that, if we are to be permitted to enter a full review of all the discussions which arose in Oregon in relation to the Douglas party, the Breckinridge party, and the Republican party, I am content; but it seems to me that we ought to be confined to the rule.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman will confine his remarks to the merits of the resolution before the House.

Mr. SHEIL. I took the liberty of replying thus to the remarks of the sitting member, because he called in question the certificate issued to me. I believed it was right to so reply.

I was about closing my remarks by referring to the character of the certificate of the member

occupying the seat from Oregon, obtained from the secretary of State. I will simply call the attention of the House to the Governor's count of the vote received by the gentleman. It is as follows:

"At the election held within and for the State of Oregon, on Tuesday, the 6th day of November, A. D. 1860, the following-named persons received the number of votes annexed to their respective names for the office of Representative in Congress, to wit:

"A. J. Thayer, four thousand and ninety-nine (4,099)

votes."

Now, here is a certificate based upon the returns to the Governor, in which it is stated that at an election-not a general, nor even a special election -that at an election he received so many votes for the office of Representative in Congress. That this was never intended to be the basis of a certificate, I need but refer to an act passed by the Legislature in 1860, giving power to the Governor to issue a proclamation to fill any vacancy which might occur in the future. The language of the act clearly gives it a retrospective character and cast; for it says:

"Be it enacted by the Legislative Assembly of the State of Oregon, That whenever a vacancy may occur in the office of Representative in Congress from this State, from any cause whatever, the Governor shall issue his writ of election to fill such vacancy, in the same manner and under the same regulations as are prescribed by law to fill vacancies in the Legislative Assembly."

This was before the election in November, 1860. The Governor never issued a proclamation; and his refusing to do so must be regarded as his conviction that the occasion or necessity for exercising that power had not yet existed.

I have said all that I desire to say upon the subject, and I leave the matter with the House. Mr. THAYER. Would it be in accordance with the rules of the House to reply?

The SPEAKER. The gentleman has the right to reply, if he chooses.

Mr.THAYER. As regards my being in favor of Stephen A. Douglas as President of the United States, I plead guilty. I belonged to that party; and I claim that, by virtue of the action of that party, I was fairly and legitimately nominated, in accordance with the action of the convention thereof. How the gentleman can claim to know anything of the action of that party, under the circumstances, surprises me. He was not a friend of Stephen A. Douglas, nor was he a member of the convention. The resolution which the gen-. tleman has read, shows that it provided that the central committee of that State should provide for a nomination, &c. The action of the committee upon that occasion is a sufficient answer to all that the gentleman has said upon that subject.

Again, the gentlemen referred to the 4,000 votes I received in that election as surreptitious and wrong. I defy him, and I defy any man to show but what I received those votes just as legally as any votes that were cast at that election. There is this fact connected with that matter: that one half of the precincts of that State were under the government and control of the Joe Lane party, and wherever they had the control they invariably refused to receive votes of those who desired to cast their suffrages for me. The people believed that a Representative had not been elected to Congress from that State, and they offered their votes in various parts of the State for me; but wherever that Lane party had control of the polls, they refused to receive them. In some instances they broke up the ballot-boxes, rather than have the votes cast for me. In other cases where votes were cast for me, they were not counted. These things account for the fact that I received only a little more than 4,000 votes. The proof to sustain these charges I offered to the Committee of Elections, and I can verify all the charges by evidence. The people of that State did not consider that they had a legal Representative for Congress, for they did not believe that the constitution of that State provided for an election on the first Monday of June, 1860. As I said before, Mr. Speaker, that was the most successful way in which they could operate against my election in November, 1860. It is said that I was not elected at any election provided for by law, as appears by the certificate of the secretary of the State. It is well known to this House that the presidential election was held on the 6th day of November, 1860, and that it was a general election, and at that election 1 received the votes mentioned.

Permit me to notice briefly some of the arguments presented by the contestant, in relation to the constitutional provision. It is claimed, on his part, that the sixth section of the schedule of the constitution of the State provided for an election on the first Monday in June, 1858. That is not denied. I take the position that the constitutional convention had a right to fix the time when the first election should be held. That does not contravene the clause of the Constitution of the United States which I have read; but the last line of that clause of the schedule clearly points out the object and design of that election-a complete organization of the State government. That was its sole object and design. It was not known at that time whether that constitution could be rati

fied by the people, or not. It was not known to the people of the State whether they would be admitted into the Union under and by virtue of that constitution, or not. That clause of the schedule was designed simply to place the State organization in operation. But the constitution nowhere says, directly or indirectly, that the people of the State shall have the right to elect a Representative in Congress on the first Monday of June, 1860. The Governor and secretary of State did not so understand it, or they would have given the gentleman a certificate of election. There is no authority in any part of the constitution for an election in June, 1860. The election of all the other officers enumerated in this sixth section of the constitution is provided for in other parts of the constitution; but not so with regard to a Representative in Congress. The constitutional convention never contemplated that a Representative in Congress should be chosen eighteen months before he would be called upon to discharge the duties of his office. They did not think of fixing the time for the election to Congress after the first election. The members of the Legislature which met in 1859, many of whom had helped to frame the constitution, when they passed an act for a special election to Congress, on the 27th of June, did not consider that the constitution provided for the election of a Representative to Congress at the general election. If they did, their act was unconstitutional. They did not regard the territorial law, providing for a general election on the first Monday in June, as being in existence. If they had looked upon it as operative, they never would have passed the law to which I have alluded.

I simply claim that there was no authority of law for the election of June, 1860; and that there is no legal Representative upon this floor by virtue of any constitutional provision of the State of Oregon, or any territorial law that existed prior to the adoption of the constitution. I claim that the contestant has no right to a seat here; and that the action of the House in seating him would place the people of Oregon in an uncertain position in the future. Suppose they shall elect a member in June, 1862, and the Legislature, in the September following, provide for an election in the next June thereafter, and an election shall then be held: who will be entitled to the seat? There is uncertainty connected with this matter; and it strikes me that this report does injustice to the people of Oregon, because it leaves them in that state of uncertainty. I submit the question to the House without further argument upon the subject.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take part with either of these gentlemen, the sitting member or the contestant, for I think that neither of them has any business here, and I shall vote in accordance with that opinion. I offer the following as a substitute for the resolutions reported by the Committee of Elections:

Resolved, That neither A. J. Thayer nor George R. Sheil is entitled to a seat in this Congress as Representative from Oregon, and that the seat be declared vacant.

Now, sir, I will detain the House but a moment. I admit that the constitution of a State, when it is framed, may fix the time for the first election, because there is no other power to fix it, and that has been the practice; but I maintain that the constitution of a State cannot fix the day for any future election of Representative in Congress. I understand one of these gentlemen to claim the seat by virtue of having been elected upon the day which he says was fixed by the constitution of Oregon-not the first election under that constitution. The Legislature had not acted; and upon that ground he claims that the action

of the constitution was good. Sir, if the constitutional provision was good, it would prohibit the Legislature from acting in the matter through all time to come. The Legislature would have their hands tied, and would not be able to fix the times and places of holding elections in that State. But the Constitution of the United States comes in and prevents any such action of the convention of that State, for it expressly provides who shall fix the times and places of holding elections for members of Congress. Here is the language of the Constitution:

"The times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof."

Now, sir, I hold that no other power in a State has a right to prescribe it; and if the State Legislature fails to fix the times and places, there is another provision of the Constitution by which Congress has the right to fix it, and I wish they would fix it, and fix it uniform throughout the United States. But I deny that the convention to frame the constitution of a State can fix the times and places for electing members of Congress, notwithstanding the provision of the Constitution which I have read.

I have brought the question briefly before the House, and I suppose everybody understands it and is ready to vote. I understand that the gentlemen interested have exhausted their desire to speak, and as the chairman of the committee will be entitled to be heard after the main question shall have been ordered, I now move the previous question.

Mr. McCLERNAND. I hope the gentleman will withdraw the demand for the previous question for a moment, until I can have an opportunity to reply to the position he has taken. I will do it in five minutes.

Mr. STEVENS. I am afraid we shall not dispose of this matter to-day, and as I desire to get to other business, I will insist on the demand for the previous question.

The previous question was seconded, and the main question ordered.

Mr. DAWES. Mr. Speaker, I understand that the ground upon which the amendment is offered is simply this: that, in the absence of legislation in Oregon by its Legislature, the constitution of Oregon having fixed the day upon which this election should take place, the House of Representatives is to say that the people of Oregon, acting through their constitution-the highest and the organic law of the State-cannot fix the time and place for holding an election. If there were a conflict between the action of the Legislature of Oregon and its constitution, there might be some ground for the position which is assumed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania. But the organic law, that which rises above and swallows up all legislative action, having determined that this election should be held on a particular day and in a specific manner, and the Legislature of Oregon having acquiesced in that by passing no law in conflict with it, it is assumed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania that it is proper for this House to say that the people of Oregon shall not, in that way and in that manner, declare how and when and where their Representative shall be elected. It occurs to me, sir, that that provision of the Constitution of the United States which says that the time and place shall be specified by the Legislature of each State, meant simply that they should be fixed by the constituted authority of the State until Congress itself should fix a time for the election in all the States. As Congress has not fixed that time, it has said to every State "you may, by your constituted authorities, through whom you choose to speak in your law, fix the time." Now, the Legislature of the State of Oregon has acquiesced, if nothing more, in the time fixed by the constitution, the organic law of Oregon.

Mr. STEVENS. The organic law of Oregon is not definite. It fixes the first election, but not. a word about any subsequent one.

Mr. DAWES. The organic law of the State says that all these general elections shall be held on the first Monday of June, biennially, and specifies what officers shall be elected on that day. Among them is a member of Congress. If, therefore, it is in the power of the State of Oregon, through its constitution, to say when this election shall be held, it has so said, it seems to me, as plainly as it could say it.

Mr. McCLERNAND. I understand that the gentleman from Pennsylvana concedes the proposition that the convention was competent to invest the Legislature, with power to fix the time for holding the first election.

Mr. STEVENS. No, I did not state that. I say I believe it has been done. I doubt the authority altogether.

Mr. McCLERNAND. That is a very different position altogether.

Mr. STEVENS. They had a right to fix the time for their general elections. I admit that. Mr. McCLERNAND. Then your position is that the convention was not competent to fix the time for an election.

Mr. STEVENS. It was competent to fix the time for general elections, but not for the election of a member of Congress.

Mr. DAWES. I was about to remark that the position of the gentleman from Pennsylvania is in the face of all the precedents of this Houseprecedents followed when Oregon herself was ad-* mitted into the Union; for the House then acknowledged, as a Representative legally elected, a man chosen at a time and place not specified by the Legislature of Oregon, but by the constitutional convention-in the same instrument that specified that his successor should be elected two years

from that time.

The House of Representatives, in admitting my friend from the State of Kansas [Mr. CONWAY] as a Representative on this floor, adopted this same construction of the powers of a State-that it could fix the time of election, either by their constitutional convention in their organic law, or by their Legislature. My friend came here, not by virtue of any election held at any time and place fixed by the Legislature of the State of Kansas; and such is the history of all these new States.

It seems to me that there can be no ground for the House adopting the amendment to the report of the committee, offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania. The sitting member does not claim to have been elected in pursuance of any law, or of any constitutional provision whatever, but on the general right to representation which the people have. The contestant is here by virtue of an election, at a time and place fixed in the constitution of Oregon itself; in compliance with which the Legislature has forborne to this day to fix any other time and place.

Mr. THOMAS, of Massachusetts. Is it competent for the Legislature of Oregon to fix the time and place of an election, in violation of the State constitution?

Mr. DAWES. If it is not competent for the Legislature, in consequence of the constitutional provision, to fix a time, then the constitutional provision overrides the Legislature of Oregon, and therefore it has performed this act itself.

Mr. THOMAS, of Massachusetts. If it overrides the Legislature, does it also override the provision of the Constitution of the United States, by which the Legislature is to fix the time of the election of members?

Mr. DAWES. Both of my colleague's propositions cannot, of course, be true. It cannot be true that the Legislature of Oregon cannot fix the time of election because of the State constitution, and be also true that the constitution of Oregon cannot override the Legislature, by reason of the Constitution of the United States. The two propositions cannot be true. Either the Legislature of Oregon can, notwithstanding the provisions of the State constitution, fix the time of the election of members, because of the Constitution of the United States, or else the people of Oregon can do it through their constitution as well as through their Legislature.

Now, the House may be prepared to depart from all its precedents. There may be other considerations. Of course, the Committee of Elections can have no feeling on the subject. They simply desire that the action of the House touching the grave and serious question of the right of members to their seats in this House shall be adjudicated solely on the law, without reference to any outside considerations. Moved solely by that consideration, the committee have unanimously come to the conclusion that there is a law in Oregon-that which has the highest sanction of law-fixing the time and place for the election of members of Congress, and that the contestant, in pursuance of that law,was elected to this House.

The question being on Mr. STEVENS's amendment,

Mr. McCLERNAND called for the yeas and

nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was taken; and it was decided in the negative-yeas 37, nays 77; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Ashley, Francis P. Blair, Samuel S. Blair, Campbell, Colfax, Covode, Davis, Delano, Edgerton, Fessenden, Frank, Harding, Hutchins, Jackson, Julian, Kelley, Lansing, Lovejoy, May, McKnight, McPherson, Moorhead, Justin S. Morrill, Olin, Pike, Potter, Riddle, Sheffield, Sloan, Stevens, Benjamin F. Thomas, Train, Vandever, Van Horn, Charles W. Walton, Wickliffe, and Windom-37.

NAYS-Messrs. Aldrich, Allen, Alley, Ancona, Arnold, Joseph Baily, Baxter, Beaman, George H. Browne, Buffinton, Burnett, Calvert, Cobb, Frederick A. Conkling, Corning, Cox, Cravens, Crisfield, Dawes, Dunlap, Dunn, Edwards, Eliot, English, Fouke, Franchot, Gooch, Granger, Gurley, Haight, Hale, Harrison, Holman, Horton, Jolinson, Law, Leary, Logan, Loomis, McClernand, McKean, Mallory, Menzies, Mitchell, Anson P. Morrill, Morris, Noble, Norton, George H. Pendleton, Perry, Pomeroy, Porter, Reid, Alexander II. Rice, John H. Rice, Robinson, Sedg.wick, Shanks, Shellabarger, Sherman, Smith, John B. Steele, William G. Steele, Trowbridge, Vallandigham, Vibbard, Voorhees, Wadsworth, Wallace, Ward, Washburne, Webster, Albert S. White, Chilton A. White, Wood, Worcester, and Wright—77.

So the amendment was rejected.
During the vote,

Mr. BURNETT said: With deference to the judgment of gentlemen who have investigated the subject more thoroughly than I have done, I change my vote, and vote "no."

The question was taken on the resolutions reported by the Committee of Elections, and they were adopted.

Mr. DAWES moved to reconsider the vote by which the resolutions were adopted; and also moved to lay the motion to reconsider on the table. The latter motion was agreed to.

Mr. GEORGE K. SHEIL, member from the State of Oregon, came forward to the Speaker's chair, and took the oath to support the Constitution of the United States.

FLOATING BATTERIES.

Mr. SEDGWICK, from the committee of conference on Senate bill No. 36, to provide for the construction of one or more armored ships or floating batteries, and for other purposes, made the following report:

The managers of the Senate of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on Senate bill (No. 36) entitled "An act to provide for the construction of one or more armored ships or floating batteries, and for other purposes," have met the managers on the part of the House, and, after full and free conference, have mutually agreed to recommend, and do recommend, that the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendments of the House, and concur therein.

The report is signed by the managers on the part of the two Houses.

The report was agreed to.

PUNISHMENT OF CERTAIN CRIMES.

Mr. BINGHAM, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill to punish certain crimes against the United States; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and ordered to be printed.

BRIDGE ACROSS THE POTOMAC.

Mr. CALVERT. I ask the consent of the House to report back from the Committee for the District of Columbia Senate bill (No. 46) to provide for the construction of a bridge across the Potomac river.

There being no objection, the bill was reported and read at length.

Mr. STEVENS. I make the point of order that that bill, containing as it does an appropriation, must be considered, under the rule, first in Committee of the Whole. And I make the second point of order that it is excluded from consideration at all during the present session by the rule which we adopted defining the character of busi

ness to be considered.

The SPEAKER. The Chair sustains the first point of order, and refers the bill to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

METROPOLITAN POLICE.

taken from the Speaker's table, read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee for the District of Columbia.

AMENDMENT OF THE RULES.

Mr. ALLEN. I desire to give notice of my intention to offer a resolution to so amend the

rules as to require all reports of committees of conference, except those made the last day of the session, to lie over for one day before consideration.

LOYALTY OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYÉS.

Mr. POTTER, from the select committee on the loyalty of Government employés, made the following special report:

The committee appointed to investigate, ascertain, and report to the House the number of persons, with the names thereof, now employed in the several Departments of the Government, who are known to entertain sentiments of hostility to the Government of the United States, and who have refused to take the oath to support the Constitution of the United States, beg leave to report in part to the House as follows:

The committee have given to the inquiry all the attention which their limited time and the pressure of other duties would allow, but have as yet scarcely advanced beyond its threshold. They have, however, examined a large number of witnesses, and have no hesitation in saying that the testimony adduced has been of such a character as to fully justify the action of the House in the premises, and to show the imperative necessity of the investigation which has been instituted.

The committee, though prepared to believe that the popular conviction in respect to the general unsoundness of the Departments in the particular referred to was well founded, yet must confess that they have been astonished at the number and aggravation of the well-authenticated cases of disloyalty to the Government which, in the course of their investigation, have been brought to their notice.

That persons should be thus disloyal to a Government, which has confided to them its sacred trusts, in whose employ they have found support for themselves and families, and to which their fidelity is due by every consideration which appeals not only to the honor of the public officer, but to the honesty of the man; and that such persons should be retained in office, and in some instances retained where the facts have been brought to the knowledge of those who have the power of removal, must be the occasion of profound grief and humiliation to every patriotic and loyal heart; and their retention in office, especially in the present critical condition of the Government, can be justified by no assumed necessity or convenience of the public service, and may well excite the honest indignation of the country.

The committee, while prepared to make these general

statements, which are concurred in by every member of the committee, find that it will be impossible to complete the work assigned to them, and make a report thereof within the probable limits of the present session. They therefore ask leave to sit during the recess of Congress, and ask the adoption of the accompanying resolutions.

JOHN F. POTTER, Chairman. Resolved, That the select committee of five, appointed by the Speaker under a resolution of this House adopted July 8, 1861, to ascertain and report to the House the number of persons, and the names thereof, now employed in the several Departments of the Government, who are known to entertain sentiments of hostility to the Government of the United States, and those who have refused to take the oath to support the Constitution of the United States, be authorized to sit and take testimony during the recess of Congress.

Resolved, That the Sergeant-at-Arms of the House be directed to attend in person, or by his assistant, the sittings

of the committee, and serve all subpenas which the coumittee may deem necessary, and pay all fees of witnesses. Resolved, That the Speaker of the House, during the recess of Congress, is hereby authorized and directed to issue subpenas, upon the request of the committee, in the same manner as during the session of Congress.

Mr. POTTER moved the previous question upon the adoption of the resolutions.

Mr. BURNETT. I appeal to the gentleman to withdraw his demand for the previous question. I will not occupy more than five minutes.

Mr. POTTER. I would be much gratified to hear the gentleman, but the hour is late, and I respectfully decline.

The previous question was seconded, and the main question ordered to be put.

Mr. BURNETT demanded the yeas and nays on the adoption of the resolutions.

The yeas and nays were not ordered.
The resolutions were adopted.

Mr. POTTER moved to reconsider the vote

by which the resolutions were adopted; and also moved to lay the motion to reconsider upon the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.
SECESSION OFFICE-HOLDERS.

Mr. JULIAN asked leave to introduce the fol

Resolved, That the retention in office, or the promotion or appointment to office, civil or military, in this city, or throughout the country, by any of the Departments of the Government, of men of well known secession sympathies,

merits the condemnation of all loyal citizens, and hereby receives the reprobation of this House. Mr. SHEFFIELD objected.

CLAIM OF B Y. SHELLEY.

Mr. ANCONA asked leave to introduce, for the purpose of reference, a bill to pay B. Y. Shelley for his claim and improvements taken from him by the Omaha reservation, in Nebraska Territory.

Mr. STEVENS objected.

UNIFORM NATURALIZATION.

Mr. ARNOLD asked leave to introduce, for the purpose of reference, a bill to amend the law providing for a uniform rule of naturalization, so as to facilitate the naturalization of those who have been in the military service of the United States, and have been honorably discharged therefrom.

Mr. STEVENS. I would suggest that that is in violation of our resolution. I move that the House adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; and thereupon (at four o'clock, p. m.) the House adjourned.

IN SENATE.

WEDNESDAY, July 31, 1861.

Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. Dr. SUNDERLAND. The Journal of yesterday was read and approved.

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid before the Senate a message from the President of the United States, in answer to a resolution of the Senate of the 19th instant, requesting information concerning the quasi armistice alluded to in his message of the 4th instant, relative to the reinforcement of Fort Pickens; which was ordered to lie on the table, and be printed.

He also laid before the Senate a message of the President of the United States, in answer to a resolution of the Senate of July 25, relative to instructions to the United States ministers abroad in reference to the rebellion in the southern portion of the Union; which, on motion of Mr. SUMNER, was ordered to lie on the table, and be printed.

He also laid before the Senate a message of the President of the United States, in answer to a resolution of the Senate of the 23d instant, requesting information concerning the imprisonment of Lieutenant John I. Worden, of the United States Navy; which was ordered to lie on the table, and be printed.

HOUSE BILLS REFERRED.

The following bills and joint resolution, received from the House of Representatives yesterday, were severally read twice by their titles, and referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs:

A bill (No. 83) for the temporary increase of midshipmen in the Naval Academy;

A bill (No. 80) authorizing the construction of twelve small side-wheel steamers; and

A joint resolution (No. 5) to examine the condition of the Naval Academy, and inquire as to the organization thereof.

BRIDGE AT THE AQUEDUCT.

Mr. GRIMES submitted the following resolution; which was considered, by unanimous consent, and agreed to:

Resolved, That the Secretary of War be, and he is hereby, instructed to report to the Senate at its next session, if the pillars of the structure known as the Alexandria aqueduct, near Georgetown, are of sufficient strength to sustain an iron bridge; and if so, whether such a bridge would be important to the United States for military purposes, and what sum it would cost.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair will lay before the Senate the bill (S. No. 43) to prevent and punish fraud on the part of officers intrusted with the making of contracts for the Government, which has been passed by the House of Representatives, with amendments.

Mr. WILSON. I should like to have that lie over for a short time, that it may be examined. I desire to read the bill.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It will lie over for the time being, if there be no objection.

FINAL ADJOURNMENT.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid before the