THIRTY-EIGHTH CONGRESS, 2D SESSION.

then, is their object in demanding this change? Let us beware that under a false plea other and more nefarious objects are not really sought to be obtained, and which it is feared openly to avow; such as the establishment of freedmen's bureaus with numerous hordes of political leeches, confiscation of property, to be divided among favored victors, and kindred and equally objectionable schemes which have found advocates upon this floor. Above all this, in the absence of any valid reason for bringing this proposition again before the present Congress, let us make ourselves sure that it is not in reality a covert attempt to ascertain to what extent the American people are willing to consent that the sovereignty of the States shall be curtailed and their form of government converted into a strong, centralized, imperial Power. It is not the first time in our history that such an attempt has been made. Nay, sir, it was resistance to such an attempt that gave existence to the Democratic party itself. There are some of us who can remember the administration of the elder Adams, who remember his odious alien and sedition laws, and other measures of his administration destructive alike of the rights of the States and the liberty of individuals. I contend, Mr. Speaker, even admitting, which I do not, that the Constitution needs amendment in reference to the question of slavery, that this is not the proper time to agitate, much less to act upon, so grave and important a question. Let us wait until the nation shall calmly repose in peace, and all feelings of enmity toward our erring brethren of the South shall have subsided, and good-will and harmony again prevail overall sections of the country. Now, in the midst of war, when passion and prejudice are inflamed to their highest pitch, is not the time to essay the amendment of our fundamental law; and the more especially when it is admitted by the advocates themselves of the proposition to amend that the object they seek to attain, namely, the abolition of slavery, has already been accomplished. Let us not, impelled by the mere excitement of the hour, engage in acts which may cause us to repent for all future time. We have, Mr. Speaker, in the history of one of our churches an apt illustration proving how in our over-zeal to accomplish an apparent right we may perpetrate the most palpable wrong. The Methodist church in this country was originally, and for many years after its establishment, a prosperous and a united body. Some years ago abolitionism made its appearance in the church, and in the over-anxiety of some of the members for the welfare of the negro, it came very near being the instrument, in bad hands, of working grievous wrong upon a portion of their white brethren. It was first insisted upon that slaveholders should be disqualified from holding the office of bishop in the church. This disqualification was next extended to the ministry, and afterward urged by some to the extent of applying it to laymen by excluding them from membership. A disruption of the church was the natural consequence, and the sequel was the establishment of two distinct and separate bodies, the Methodist church North and the Methodist church South. After the separation, the church South insisted upon having their pro rata share of the property owned in common by the disrupted body, and also a proportionate share of the fund raised for the support and maintenance of aged and indigent preachers, (to which they had contributed,)|| but the radical abolition wing of the church North denied their application. The injustice of their proceeding must be clearly manifest to every unprejudiced mind, and I refer to it only as an illustration of the extent to which men impelled by an ultra spirit of fanaticism may become blinded to the most palpable considerations of even-handed justice. Of course the church South could not submit to be deprived of their rights and their property upon the simple plea that they were slaveholders, and not to be recognized for that reason as part of the church community, and they applied to the Supreme Court of the United States

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 1865.

for redress. The result was a verdict in their favor.

Does not this history, Mr. Speaker, afford us a lesson and warning which we should heed? It is not many years since the occurrence of these events, and many who were participants therein are yet on the stage of action. I have no doubt that they are now satisfied that they were then in error, and will agree with me that they should not too hastily act where it is possible that hurried action may cause injustice and wrong.

Let us then, in our action in reference to this question of constitutional amendment, heed this lesson, and be careful not to encroach upon the rights or enslave the white man, under the mistaken idea that we are thereby benefiting the negro. A blind spirit of fanaticism, under the excited passions of the moment, if suffered to sway our action, can bring harm only to both races and to the country.

There is, Mr. Speaker, another reason which should induce us to approach the consideration of this question with great caution. Adopt this amendment to the Constitution, force it upon the States now in rebellion, and let the result be then restoration to the Union, and who can predict what stumbling-blocks may be thrown in the way of the execution of the Federal laws on the subject? The abolition of slavery forced upon them without their consent and against their will, it is but natural to suppose that the people of those States will not feel particularly anxious to aid in carrying the measure into practical effect. Every one remembers the trouble experienced in the execution of the Federal law known as the fugitive slave law in some of the States which now claim to be filled to overflowing with what in modern parlance is called "loyalty to the Federal Government," but which, in my humble opinion, oftener partakes of the nature of party fealty than of that of true patriotism. In opposition to that law, some of the States adopted enactments going to the extent of disfranchising officials or citizens attempting or aiding to enforce it. Is there not, at least, danger to be apprehended that other States, following this example, may in like manner attempt to thwart and interfere with the execution of laws carrying into effect the abolition of slavery? Would it not be better to wait until the people of these States themselves, by their own action, provide for the practical abolition of slavery, or rather for the removal of the corpse from which, we are told, the life has long since departed. All the free States at the North have done so, and Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia, Missouri, Louisiana, and Tennessee are said to have followed suit already. Why not leave the causes which operated upon these States to work out the same effects upon their sister slave States?

Mr. Speaker, the platform upon which I was elected was "the Constitution as it is and the Union as it was." The Constitution was framed by far better and wiser men than ourselves. They are all gone, but they have left a record of purity and patriotism that in my opinion casts far in the shade the blatant claims of the most loud-mouthed and loyal of all the "loyal leaguers" in the land. For myself, Mr. Speaker, I shall prefer to be guided in my action by the landmarks laid down by the fathers of the Republic, and which, adhered to three quarters of a century, bore the ship of State safely and prosperously upon a glorious career, and the disregard of which has thrown the noble craft among the rocks which now threaten her destruction.

NEW SERIES.....No. 34.

the Constitution has been discussed at length and with great ability by members on both sides of the House, but the debate has elicited little really new. Conceding, even, that Congress has the right to amend the Constitution in reference to slavery as a domestic institution (which I do not) my position is that this is not the proper time for this power to be exercised. The pretense assigned by some that Congress should abolish slavery for the purpose of benefiting the slaveholders themselves is to my mind simply absurd. Are they incompetent to judge as to what is best for their own interests, and Congress alone competent so to do? That is the argument; and what an argument it is to be seriously urged in a representative republican Government like ours! It is the old British theory that "King and Parliament are omnipotent," and which our fathers repudiated when they framed our Constitution. Those who favor this theory are at least consistent in advocating an amendment of this instru

ment.

It is claimed by some that the result of the recent presidential election affords conclusive evidence of the fact that the people are in favor of amending the Constitution of the United States so that it shall abolish and prohibit slavery. This I deny. Whatever may have been the hopes and wishes of ultra abolitionists, I insist that this was not the issue made up and presented to the people. In my own State, at least, I know that this was not the case. What is the record in connection with this question? At the last session of Congress this same resolution was submitted and it failed to pass. The people had every reason to suppose that would be the end of it.

There may be some who will claim that the fact that Reuben E. Fenton received a majority of the votes of New York State for Governor is to be received as an indorsement of his act in voting in favor of this proposition at the last session of Congress. This claim, I imagine, will not bear the test of the slightest scrutiny. There were other causes which produced that result. The people, in my opinion, were in many cases led astray by brawling, hireling demagogues, who lived and thrived upon the spoils of office; who misrepresented the position of the Democratic party by charging its leaders as being in favor of a dishonorable peace at the sacrifice of the Union. In addition there was brought to bear in favor of Mr. Fenton and his party the immense patronage of the General Government; the army of customhouse, post office, and internal revenue officials; the employés in the navy-yard; Army and Navy contractors, and others. Yet with all this aid the party supporting Mr. Fenton would have failed (as I think even my colleague will concede) had the thousands who were unable to deposit their votes in New York and Brooklyn in consequence of inadequate provision for their reception, have been able to express their preferences at the ballot-box, and the Democratic soldiers now serving their country in the field been at home to vote untrammeled. I feel assured no reasonable man could have doubted but that the State would have given a handsome majority. Even as it was, sir, Mr. Fenton's majority was less than the number of Government employés in the single city of Brooklyn. I say, then, it is preposterous to claim that the people of the State of New York voted in favor of this constitutional amendment. So far from the question being submitted to them, it was carefully kept out of view during the campaign.

The platform upon which those of us from New York representing Democratic constituencies stood when we were elected was, "the Constitution as it is and the Union as it was.' My colleague, I believe, stood there with me then; for myself, I am content to stand there now. The

The abstract question of our right to amend

no misunderstanding; it is plain, direct, and unequivocal, and cannot be tortured to mean the Constitution as a party majority see fit to make "The Union as it was," I construe to mean

it.

the Union of former days, when constitutional guarantees were regarded as sacred by all sections of the country, and the integrity of that Union, with or without slavery, it will be my humble effort ever to preserve inviolate.

Mr. Speaker, there are those, and my colleague is among them, who plead as an excuse for voting for this proposition that after all it amounts merely to a reference of the question to the people of the States, and they are finally to decide the question. This argument would, I confess, have some force with me if it was a correct one, but so far as New York is concerned it is not. The present Legislature of the State will be in session long after this Congress has ceased to exist, and it is to that Legislature, who have already given utterance to their sentiments upon the subject, that this resolution, if it passes, will be referred. But, sir, as a Representative in this House I cannot fulfill the duty intrusted to me by shirking a responsibility which I am called upon to bear. My constituents do not desire this measure. I fulfill their wishes and perform my own duty in voting against it.

cannot but admit this if he compares the statistics of Louisiana or Georgia with those of New Hampshire or Vermont, or those of New Orleans with those of Newburyport or Bennington.

My colleague further says:

"When labor shall be free at the South, then will it command and have the respect which is its just due. Then will millions of the white men of the North participate and share in the blessings thus secured. The masses of our native and foreign-born laborers, now toiling in the severer climate of the North, will be invited to enter upon these newly opened fields for their industry and occupation. The now hidden resources of the States south will be developed by the brain and muscle of the northern laborer."

I, sir, was of the class he alludes to. My Caucasian blood revolts at the idea advanced by my friend, that were the negroes freed by abolishing slavery the South would at once become the El Dorado of the native and foreign-born white laborer of the North by allowing him the privilege of laboring side by side with the African freedman of the South. We may as well expect the most opposite things in nature to be reconciled, the most incongruous to harmonize, as that such a thing can happen. He needs but to take one step further to advocate amalgamation.

I hope, sir, that this hitherto glorious and happy country, the home and asylum of millions of white men, will not be doomed to become the land of a race of hybrids, and thus by degrees be blot

mutable laws of nature.

The Legislature now in session was not chosen with reference to the opinion of its members or their probable action upon the proposed constitutional amendment, No one will claim it, and yet it is proposed by my colleague that they shall act for the people of the State on the subject. Di-ted out of existence in accordance with the imvided up as are the counties the Republican party, with a bare majority of the popular vote of the State, has nearly two thirds of the Legislature, and judging from the acts of their Representatives here it is easy to predict what would have been their action. The people of New York will never be permitted to give a direct vote upon the question. For one I will never consent that the voice of my constituents shall thus be suppressed and overriden.

Another question, Mr. Speaker, although of great importance, appears to be silently passed over by those favoring the amendment. How, sir, are the expenses of this war to be paid? Are they to be borne and made a burden upon the white labor of the North solely? Abolish slavery, and you destroy the ability on the part of the South to contribute a portion of what they should in justice be held to pay. Adopt the plan of gradual emancipation, as proposed, and it is reasonable to suppose they would be unable to bear their share. The South have been largely instrumental in creating this liability, and should not be permitted to evade payment by affording them an excuse for it. This cannot but be the case, unless abolition at the South produces results totally different from those experienced elsewhere, and the natural habits of the negro have become entirely changed. Indirect confiscation of the lands, if they should under the circumstances be of sufficient or any value, will have to resorted to to get from the States now in re

system might have been more easily obtained. Conciliatory action on our part, combined with proper vigilance, is more likely to produce good results than any system of violence and severity, which only produces irritation and discontent, and which is almost sure to result in real injury to the white man, while of doubtful benefit to the freedmen of African descent.

Mr. Speaker, I am no advocate of slavery. Years ago I was opposed to its extension, so far as I could legally and constitutionally do so, beyond the limits within which it then existed. I believed slavery to be an evil then, and I believe it to be an evil now. I have been charged with inconsistency by some of my Democratic friends, who, when the institution had powerful friends, favored its extension, but who now, when its power has departed, are over-zealous in efforts to exterminate it. Nay, they are not satisfied with its acknowledged death, but are clamorous to be allowed to act as grave diggers at its burial.bellion what under a more humane and politic is, perhaps, the zeal which we are told ever inspires new converts. For myself I have only to say that I have endeavored to be thoroughly consistent. My opposition to slavery does not permit me to aid in perpetrating gross wrong. I hope that slavery may be abolished, and have ever hoped so, but not through the impulses of a wild fanaticism, surging on reckless of the rights and interests alike of the slave and the slaveholder; not by the exercise of doubtful powers under the excitement of passion and prejudice, but by calm, careful, and considerate action. convince the States interested in its abolition of its propriety, and let them abolish it, as under the Constitution they may do, and as some of them are doing. It is purely a local question, and Congress might with as much propriety interfere with the system of labor in the large manufacturing establishments in the East, as with slavery in the South, because evils are incidental to both. These have ever been my views, and they are my views now, and I cannot see wherein they are inconsistent.

Let us

Among other reasons adduced by my colleague for favoring the proposed amendment, is the alleged effect slavery produces in retarding the growth and prosperity of the States where it exists as compared with those where it does not. This is, in my judgment, jumping at conclusions. Why, let me ask my friend, does New York show a greater growth and a greater degree of pros- || perity than New Hampshire or Vermont? Is it because the latter are slave States? Why, let me ask again, does the city of Providence show a greater degree of prosperity and advancement than the city of Warren, both in Rhode Island, and both free? He will look in vain to find in slavery a solution of these questions, There are other causes which produce the effects ascribed by him solely to the institution of slavery, and my friend

I have briefly stated my reasons, Mr. Speaker, for being opposed to the passage of any resolution having for its object a change in the fundamental law of the land, and shall vote against it. In so doing I shall act not only as my own convictions prompt me, but I am satisfied in direct conformity with the wishes of those whom I

represent.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, permit me to add that I have been for thirty years a Democrat. The experience of a long and not uneventful life only lead me to place fuller and firmer faith in the principles of my party. I have seen these principles One by one stricken down, but in their fall I have seen no advantage to my country. I see in this amendment to the Constitution but the consummation of a policy which has led to the bloodiest war in history, and which has placed the fate of the Republic more than once on the hazard of battle. Upon you, gentlemen, upon the other side, the responsibility for this measure must rest. 1, for one, cannot and will not aid you. You will soon have full power; exercise it. Take all the credit the act will bring, and assume all the danger it involves. The Democratic party will stand by its old and well tried policy, guided by its old land-marks, under its old banner, and keeping step to the music of the Union. I cannot wish my country better, sir, than that the party opposed to that to which I belong rival the success of the Democracy, and shall emulate its glory.

But I am constrained to say the past history of the party in power excites in my breast but little hope for the future. I am weary of the experimental legislation, ending no man can tell in what unforeseen disaster. Of such legislation the proposed amendment is a bad specimen, and I shall vote against it.

Mr. ASHLEY. I call the previous question upon the pending motion to reconsider the vote by which the House on the 15th of last June rejected a joint resolution (S. No. 16) submitting to the Legislatures of the several States a proposition to amend the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. STILES. I move to lay the motion to reconsider on the table; and upon that I demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was put; and it was decided in the negative-yeas 57, nays 111, not voting 14; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. James C. Allen, William J. Allen, Ancona, Bliss, Brooks, James S. Brown, Chanler, Clay, Cox, Cravens, Dawson, Denison, Eden, Edgerton, Eldridge, Finck, Ganson, Grider, Hall, Harding, Harrington, Benjamin G. Harris, Charles M. Harris, Holman, Philip Johnson, William Johnson, Kalbfleisch, Kernan, Knapp, Law, Long, Mallory, William H. Miller, James R. Morris, Morrison, Noble, John O'Neill, Pendleton, Perry, Pruyn, Samuel J. Randall, Robinson, Ross, Scott, William G. Steele, Stiles, Strouse, Stuart, Sweat, Townsend, Wadsworth, Ward, Chilton A. White, Joseph W. White, Winfield, Benjamiù Wood, and Fernando Wood-57.

NAYS-Messrs. Alley, Allison, Ames, Anderson, Arnold, Ashley, Baily, Augustus C.Baldwin, John D. Baldwin, Baxter, Beaman, Blaine, Blair, Blow, Boutwell, Boyd, Brandegee, Broomall, William G. Brown, Ambrose W. Clark, Freeman Clarke, Cobb, Coffroth, Cole, Creswell, Henry Winter Davis, Thomas T. Davis, Dawes, Deming, Dixon, Donnelly, Driggs, Dumont, Eckley, Eliot, Farnsworth, Frank, Garfield, Gooch, Grinnell, Griswold, Hale, Herrick, Higby, Hooper, Hotchkiss, Asahel W. Hubbard, John H. Hubbard, Hulburd, Ingersoll, Jenckes, Julian, Kasson, KelJey, Francis W. Kellogg, Orlando Kellogg, King, Knox, Littlejohn, Loan, Longyear, Marvin, McAllister, McBride, McClurg, McIndoe, Samuel F. Miller, Moorhead, Morrill, Daniel Morris, Amos Myers, Leonard Myers, Norton, Odell, Charles O'Neill, Orth, Patterson, Periram, Pike, Pomeroy, Price, William H. Randall, Alexander H. Rice, John f. Rice, Edward H. Rollins, James S. Rollins, Schenek, Scofield, Shannon, Sloan, Smith, Smithers, Spalding, Starr, Stevens, Thayer, Thomas, Tracy, Upson, Van Valkenburgh, Elihu B. Washburne, William B. Washburn, Webster, Wheeler, Williams, Wilder, Wilson, Window, Woodbridge, Worthington, and Yeaman-111.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. English, Hutchins, Lazear, Le Blond, Marcy, McDowell, McKinney, Middleton, Nelson, Radford, Rogers, John B. Steele, Voorhees, and Whaley-14.

So the motion to reconsider was not laid on the table.

During the call of the roll,

Mr. ROLLINS, of Missouri, stated that Mr. ROGERS, of New Jersey, had been confined to his room several days by indisposition.

Mr. CRAVENS stated that Mr. VOORHEES was still detained at his home in Indiana in consequence of severe sickness in his family.

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

The question being on the motion of Mr. AsнLEY, to reconsider,

Mr. ANCONA called for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was put; and it was decided in the affirmative-yeas 112, nays 57, not voting 13; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Alley, Allison, Ames, Anderson, Arnold, Ashley, Baily, John D. Baldwin, Baxter, Beainan, Blaine, Blair, Blow, Boutwell, Boyd, Braudegee, Broomall, William G. Brown, Ambrose W. Clark, Freeman Clarke, Cobb, Coffroth, Cole, Creswell, Henry Winter Davis, Thomas T. Davis, Dawes, Deming, Dixon, Donnelly, Driggs, Dumont, Eckley, Eliot, English, Farnsworth, Frank, Garfield, Gooch, Grinnell, Griswold, Bale, Herrick, Higby, Hooper, Hotchkiss, Asaliel W. Hubbard, John L. Hubbard, Hulburd, Ingersoll, Jenckes, Julian, Kasson, Kelley, Francis W. Kellogg, Orlando Kellogg, King, Knox, Littlejohn, Loan, Longyear, Marvin, McAllister, McBride, MeClurg, McIndoe, Samuel F. Miller, Moorhead, Morrill, Daniel Morris, Amos Myers, Leonard Myers, Norton, Odell, Charles O'Neill, Orth, Patterson, Perham, Pike, Pomeroy, Price, William H. Randall, Alexander H. Rice, John H. Rice, Edward H. Rollins, James S. Rollins, Scheuck, Sco. field, Shannon, Sloan, Smith, Smithers, Spalding. Starr, Stevens, Thayer, Thomas, Tracy, Upson, Van Valkenburgh, Elihu B. Washburne, William B. Washburn, Webster, Whaley, Wheeler, Williams, Wilder, Wilson, Windom, Woodbridge, Worthington, and Yeaman-112.

NAYS-Messrs. James C. Allen, William J. Allen, Ancona, Bliss, Brooks, James S. Brown, Chauler, Clay, Cox, Cravens, Dawson, Denison, Eden, Edgerton, Eldridge, Finck, Ganson, Grider, Hall. Harding, Harrington, Benjamin G. Harris, Charles M. Harris, Holman, Philip Juluson, William Johnson, Kalbfleisch, Kernan, Knapp, Law, Long, Mallory, William H. Miller, James R. Morris, Morri

son, Noble, John O'Neill, Pendleton, Perry, Pruyn, Samuel J. Randall, Robinson, Ross, Scott, William G. Steele, Stiles, Strouse, Stuart, Sweat, Townsend, Wadsworth, Ward, Chilton A. White, Joseph W. White, Winfield, Benjamin Wood, and Fernando Wood-57.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. Augustus C. Baldwin, Hutchins, Lazear, Le Blond, Marcy, McDowell, McKinney, Middleton, Nelson, Radford, Rogers, John B. Steele, and Voorhees-13.

So the motion to reconsider was agreed to.

The question recurred on the passage of the joint resolution.

Mr. ASHLEY. I demand the previous question.

Mr. MALLORY. I rise to a question of order. My point of order is that a vote to reconsider the vote by which the subject now before the House was disposed of in June last requires two thirds of this body. That two-thirds vote has not been obtained.

The SPEAKER. The Chair overrules the point of order. The rules of the House authorize every bill and joint resolution to pass by a majority vote. The Constitution of the United States, however, declares that no constitutional amendment shall pass except by a two-thirds vote. On the question of the passage of the joint resolution the constitutional provision will operate, and not till that time. All other questions are governed by the rules of the House.

The Chair will state that this has been the uniform usage of the House in regard to bills vetoed by the President. In such cases all votes up to the time of taking the question on the passage of the bill over the President's veto are decided by a majority vote; but on the final vote a two-thirds vote is necessary.

Mr. MALLORY. My action upon this question of order will depend a good deal on the response to a proposition which I am about to make to the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. ASHLEY.] There are gentlemen belonging to this side of the House who can be here to-morrow, but who are not here to-day, who are anxious to vote upon this question. If the gentleman from Ohio will agree that the vote shall be taken at a fixed hour to-morrow, all action upon this side of the House for delay will cease.

Mr. ASHLEY. It has been the universal understanding that we were to have a vote to-day. Gentlemen upon the other side of the House will bear me witness that I have prolonged this debate against the protest of gentlemen upon this side of the House and of leading friends of the measure in the country; and I think it does not come with a very good grace from the gentleman from Kentucky, in view of the time which has been extended to his friends on that side of the House, that he should demand now, when notice was given again and again that a vote would be taken to-day, that it shall be postponed until to-morrow. It seems to me that if gentlemen choose to absent themselves from the House their action ought not to operate either to keep us in session here or justify members in resorting to the usual parliamentary rules to procrastinate and put off the vote.

Mr. MALLORY. I was not aware that any understanding had been arrived at as to a vote on this question to-day. It was postponed till to-day, but at that time there was certainly no understanding that there should be a vote to-day.

Mr. ASHLEY. In reply to a question by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. STILES,] I gave notice last week that the vote would be taken to-day; and at the beginning of the discussion this morning I fixed three o'clock as the time the vote would be taken, instead of which we have procrastinated it almost an hour to accommodate gentlemen upon the other side of the House.

Mr. MALLORY. Did that understanding exist upon this side of the House? If it did and if gentlemen will say so, I shall take no action in

this matter.

Several MEMBERS. It was so understood. Mr. ASHLEY. I cannot yield any further.

Mr. BROWN, of Wisconsin. I ask the gentleman from Ohio to yield to me to offer a substitute for the joint resolution.

Mr. ASHLEY. I cannot yield for that purpose. I have a substitute myself, which I should much prefer to the original joint resolution, but I do not offer it.

The SPEAKER. No motion to amend would be in order at this stage. The joint resolution has passed its third reading, and is now on its passage.

Mr. ELDRIDGE. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio says that he has a substitute which he himself prefers to this joint resolution. If so, why does he not offer it to the House? There certainly will be no objection on this side.

Mr. ASHLEY. I do not offer it, because I would not procrastinate this discussion or hazard the passage of the measure.

Mr. ELDRIDGE. It seems to me that if the gentleman has a better substitute, he should propose it. [Calls to order.]

The previous question was seconded, and the main question ordered; which was on the passage of the joint resolution.

Mr. DAWSON called for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was taken, and it was decided in the affirmative-yeas 119, nays 56, not voting 8; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Alley, Allison, Ames, Anderson, Arnold, Ashley, Baily, Augustus C. Baldwin, John D. Baldwin, Baxter, Beaman, Blaine, Blair, Blow, Boutwell, Boyd, Brandegee, Broomall, William G. Brown, Ambrose W. Clark, Freeman Clarke, Cobb, Coffroth, Cole, Colfax, Creswell, Henry Winter Davis, Thomas T. Davis, Dawes, Deming, Dixon, Donnelly, Driggs, Dumont, Eckley, Eliot, English, Farnsworth, Frank, Ganson, Garfield, Gooch, Grinnell, Griswold, Hale, Herrick, Higby, Hooper, Hotchkiss, Asahel W. Hubbard, John H. Hubbard, Hulburd, Hutchins, Ingersoll, Jenckes, Julian, Kasson, Kelley, Francis W. Kellogg, Orlando Kellogg, King, Knox, Littlejohn, Loan, Longyear, Marvin, McAllister, McBride, McClurg, MeIndoe, Samuel F. Miller, Moorhead, Morrill, Daniel Morris, Amos Myers, Leonard Myers, Nelson, Norton, Odell, Charles O'Neill, Orth, Patterson, Perham, Pike, Pomeroy, Price, Radford, William H. Randall, Alexander H. Rice, John H. Rice, Edward H. Rollins, James S. Rollins, Schenck, Sco. field, Shannon, Sloan, Smith, Smithers, Spalding, Starr, John B. Steele, Stevens, Thayer, Thomas, Tracy, Upson, Van Valkenburgh, Elihu B. Washburne, William B. Washburn, Webster, Whaley, Wheeler, Williams, Wilder, Wilson, Windom, Woodbridge, Worthington, and Yeaman-119.

NAYS-Messrs. James C. Allen, William J. Allen, Ancona, Bliss, Brooks, James S. Brown, Chanler, Clay, Cox, Cravens, Dawson, Denison, Eden, Edgerton, Eldridge, Finck, Grider, Hall, Harding, Harrington, Benjamin G. Harris, Charles M. Harris, Holman, Philip Johnson, William Johnson, Kalbfleisch, Kernan, Knapp, Law, Long, Mallory, William H. Miller, James R. Morris, Morrison, Noble, John O'Neill, Pendleton, Perry, Pruyn, Samuel J. Randall, Robinson, Ross, Scott, William G. Steele, Stiles, Strouse, Stuart, Sweat, Townsend, Wadsworth, Ward, Chilton A. White, Joseph W. White, Winfield, Benjamin Wood, and Fernando Wood-56.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. Lazear, Le Blond, Marcy, McDowell, McKinney, Middleton, Rogers, and Voorhees-8.

So, the two thirds required by the Constitution of the United States having voted in favor thereof, the joint resolution was passed.

During the roll-call,

On Mr. ENGLISH and Mr. GANSON voting "ay," there was considerable applause by members on the Republican side of the House.

The SPEAKER called repeatedly to order, and asked that members should set a better example to spectators in the gallery.

Mr. KALBFLEISCH and other Democratic members remarked that the applause came, not from the spectators in the gallery, but from members on the floor.

The SPEAKER. Members will take their seats and observe order.

The SPEAKER directed the Clerk to call his name as a member of the House.

hundreds of whom were present, rose in their seats and waved their handkerchiefs, participating in and adding to the general excitement and intense interest of the scene. This lasted for several minutes.]

Mr. INGERSOLL. Mr. Speaker, in honor of this immortal and sublime event I move that the House do now adjourn.

The SPEAKER declared the motion carried, and again the cheering and demonstrations of applause were renewed.

Mr. HARRIS, of Maryland. I demand the yeas and nays on the motion to adjourn. The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was taken; and it was decided in the affirmative-yeas 121, nays 24, not voting 37; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Alley, Allison, Ames, Ancona, Anderson, Arnold, Ashley, Baily, Augustus C. Baldwin, John D. Baldwin, Baxter, Beaman, Blaine, Blair, Blow, Boutwell, Boyd, Brandegee, Broomall, William G. Brown, Chauler, Ambrose W. Clark, Freeman Clarke, Cobb, Cole, Cox, Creswell, Henry Winter Davis, Thomas T. Davis, Dawes, Dawson, Deming, Dixon, Donnelly, Driggs, Eckley, Eliot, English, Farnsworth, Frank, Garfield, Gooch, Grinnell, Griswold, Hale, Herrick, Higby, Hotchkiss, Asahel W. Hubbard, John H. Hubbard, Hulburd, Hutchins, Ingersoll, Jenckes, Julian, Kasson, Kelley, Francis W. Kellogg, Orlando Kellogg, Kernan, King, Knox, Littlejohn, Loan, Longyear, Mallory, Marvin, McAllister, McBride, McClurg, McIndoe, Samuel F. Miller, Moorhead, Morrill, Daniel Morris, Amos Myers, Leonard Myers, Nelson, Norton, Odell, Charles O'Neill, Patterson, Pendleton, Perham, Pike, Pomeroy, Price, William H. Randall, Alexander H. Rice, John H. Rice, Edward H. Rollins, James S. Rollins, Schenck, Scofield, Scott, Shannon, Sloan, Smithers, Spalding, Starr, Stevens, Strouse, Stuart, Thayer, Thomas, Tracy, Upson, Van Valkenburgh, Wadsworth, Ward, Elihu B. Washburne, William B. Washburn, Whaley, Wheeler, Williams, Wilder, Wilson, Windom, Winfield, Benjamin Wood, and Woodbridge-121.

NAYS-Messrs. James C. Allen, William J. Allen, Coffroth, Denison, Eden, Edgerton, Eldridge, Grider, Harring ton, Benjamin G. Harris, Charles M. Harris, Holman, Kalbfleisch, Knapp, Law, Long, Morrison, Noble, Radford, Samuel J. Randall, Ross, Stiles, Townsend, and Joseph W. White-24.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. Bliss, Brooks, James S. Brown, Clay, Cravens, Dumont, Finck, Ganson, Hall, Harding, Hooper, Philip Johnson, William Johnson, Lazear, Le Blond, Marcy, McDowell, McKinney, Middleton, William H. Miller, James R. Morris, John O'Neill, Orth, Perry, Pruyn, Robinson, Rogers, Smith, John B. Steele, William G. Steele, Sweat, Voorhees, Webster, Chilton A. White, Fernando Wood, Worthington, and Yeaman-37. The House thereupon (at twenty minutes past four o'clock, p. m.,) adjourned.

IN SENATE.

WEDNESDAY, February 1, 1865.

Prayer by Rev. B. H. NADAL, D. D.

On motion of Mr. WILSON, and by unanimous consent, the reading of the Journal was dispensed with.

PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS.

Mr. RAMSEY presented a memorial of the Legislature of the State of Minnesota, for an additional grant of lands to aid in the completion of the several lines of railroad and branches in that State mentioned in the act of Congress approved March 3, 1857, and for an extension of the time limited therein for the completion of the railroads; which was referred to the Committee on Public Lands, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. DIXON presented the petition of Hillard Gladding, praying for an amendment of the Constitution of the United States forever prohibiting slavery; which was ordered to lie on the table.

Mr. CHANDLER presented resolutions of the Legislature of the State of Michigan, in favor of a grant of land in aid of the construction of a harbor at the mouth of Ontonagon river, on the south shore of Lake Superior; which were referred to the Committee on Public Lands, and ordered to be printed.

He also presented resolutions of the Legislature of the State of Michigan, in favor of a grant of land in aid of the construction of a ship-canal from Portage Lake to Lake Superior; which were referred to the Committee on Public Lands, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. SUMNER presented the petition of William Croswell, formerly in the naval service, for a pension; which was referred to the Committee on Pensions.

Mr. MORGAN presented a resolution of the Chamber of Commerce of the State of New York, concurring in the resolutions of the Philadelphia Board of Trade, recommending an amendment to the Constitution of the United States imposing

duties on exports; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

He also presented the petition of officers of the forty-fifth regiment United States colored troops, praying for the passage of a law authorizing the appointment of a brevet second lieutenant, with the pay of the grade, for each company of colored troops; which was referred to the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia.

Mr. NESMITH presented a memorial of the Legislature of the State of Oregon in favor of the establishment of a branch mint at Portland in that State; which was referred to the Committee on Finance.

Mr. HALE presented the memorial of Janes, Fowler, Kirtland & Co., of New York city, contractors to furnish material for the new dome of the Capitol, praying for additional compensation on their contract; which was referred to the Committee on Claims.

Mr. SHERMAN presented a memorial of senators and representatives of the Legislature of the State of Ohio, for an increase of the salaries of the judges of the district courts of the United States; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. SPRAGUE presented a memorial of S. W. Macy, collector of customs at Newport, Rhode Island, praying that a steam whistle be placed on Castle Hill; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce.

Mr. ANTHONY. I present the memorial of Edward Harris and others, citizens of Rhode Island, deprecating the enactment of a bankrupt law by Congress other than one purely prospective in its character. The memorialists set forth that while they have no objection to one that is prospective, they judge that a retrospective act, especially at this time, during the pendency of the war, would be injurious to the interests of the country. As the bill has been reported I move that the memorial lie on the table.

The motion was agreed to.

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS.

The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate a message from the President of the United States communicating, in compliance with a resolution of the Senate of December 20, 1864, information in relation to the arrest of Colonel Richard T. Jacobs, Lieutenant Governor of the State of Kentucky, and Colonel Frank Wolford, one of the presidential electors of that State; which was ordered to lie on the table, and be printed.

He also laid before the Senate a report of the Secretary of War communicating, in answer to a resolution of the Senate of the 10th of January, 1865, a list of officers of the regular Army, with a statement how they were employed on the 1st of January, 1865; which was ordered to lie on the table, and be printed.

He also laid before the Senate a report of the Secretary of War, transmitting, in answer to a resolution of the Senate of the 6th of January, 1865, communications from Major General McDowell, commanding the department of the Pacific, in relation to a recent attempt to send arms and munitions of war out of that department to Mexico; which was ordered to lie on the table, and be printed.

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES.

Mr. SHERMAN, from the Committee on Finance, to whom was referred a bill (H. R. No. 649) making appropriations for the legislative, executive, and judicial expenses of the Government for the year ending June 30, 1866, reported

it with amendments.

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the bill (S. No. 418) supplementary to an act entitled "An act to regulate the compensation of members of Congress," approved August 16, 1856, reported adversely thereon.

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred a bill (H. R. No. 705) for the relief of collectors and surveyors of customs in certain cases, reported it without amendment.

Mr. DOQLITTLE, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, to whom was recommitted the bill (H. R. No. 222) to extinguish the Indian title to lands in the Territory of Utah suitable for agricultural and mineral purposes, reported it with

out amendment.

He also, from the same committee, to whom

was referred the joint resolution (H. R. No. 38) directing the Secretary of the Interior to pay to the Chippewa Ottawa, and Pottawatomie Indians, residing in Michigan, the sum of $192,850, reported it with amendments, and submitted a report, which was ordered to be printed.

Mr.MORRILL, from the Committee on Claims, to whom was referred a petition of Janes, Fowler, Kirtland & Co., of New York, contractors to furnish the material and labor for the construction of the dome of the Capitol, praying for additional compensation on their contract, asked to be discharged from its further consideration; which was agreed to.

Mr. FOSTER, from the Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. No. 640) providing for a district and circuit court of the United States for the district of Nevada, reported it with an amendment.

Mr. FOSTER. The same committee, to whom was referred a bill (H. R. No. 601) supplementary to an act entitled "An act to enable the people of Nevada to form a constitution and State government, and for the admission of said State into the Union on an equal footing with the original States," and the bill (S. No. 374) supplementary to the same act, have instructed me to report them back and recommend that they be indefinitely postponed, their provisions being comprised in House bill No. 640, which I have just reported favorably.

The report was concurred in.

Mr. CLARK, from the Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the report of the Court of Claims in favor of the claim of John Robb, submitted an adverse report; which was ordered to be printed.

Mr. SHERMAN, from the Committee on Finance, to whom was referred the report of the Comptroller of the Currency, reported a bill (S. No. 423) supplementary to an act entitled "An act to provide a national currency secured by a pledge of United States bonds, and to provide for the circulation and redemption thereof;" which was read, and passed to a second reading.

THANKS TO GENERAL SHERIDAN. Mr. WILSON. I am directed by the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia to report back the joint resolution (H. R. No. 142) tendering the thanks of Congress to Major General Philip H. Sheridan and the officers and men under his command, and recommend its passage, and I ask for its present consideration.

By unanimous consent the joint resolution was considered as in Committee of the Whole. It proposes to tender the thanks of Congress to Major General Philip H. Sheridan and to the officers and men under his command for the gallantry, military skill, and courage displayed in the bril liant series of victories achieved by them in the valley of the Shenandoah, and especially for their services at Cedar Run, on the 19th of October, 1864, which retrieved the fortunes of the day and thus averted a great disaster.

The joint resolution was reported to the Senate, ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and passed.

ABOLITION OF SLAVERY.

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. MCPHERSON, its Clerk, announced that the House had passed without amendment the joint resolution (S. R. No. 16) submitting to the Legislatures of the several States a proposition to amend the Constitution of the United States. A

subsequent message announced that the resolution had been enrolled, and that the enrolled resolution had received the signature of the Speaker of the House. It was then signed by the Vice President, and transmitted to the President of the United States, who, by his Secretary, Mr. NicOLAY, 800n announced that it had been approved and signed by him.

RETURN OF ARKANSAS TO THE UNION.

Mr. POMEROY. I move to take up the joint resolution (S. R. No. 104) for the return of Arkansas to the Union, which I laid upon the table a few days ago, for the purpose of having it referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

The motion to take up the joint resolution was agreed to.

Mr. POMEROY. In moving the reference of

the joint resolution to the Committee on the Judiciary, I want to make a single statement. I am encouraged to send it to that committee from what I find in the report which they made at the last session on the question of admitting the gentlemen who then presented themselves as Senators from Arkansas. I did not at that time oppose that report, because I thought that it was premature to agitate the question; the subject was presented to us suddenly, and it was about the close of the session. There were various circumstances combined at that time why I thought Arkansas could not be received; but I am encouraged now to send this resolution to the committee, because in their report then, speaking of the fact that a majority of the voters did not participate in the election, they stated:

"This, however, would not be fatal to the reorganization, it all who were loyal to the Union had an opportunity to participate, and the State was free from military control. Such, however, is understood not to have been the case. The President had not then, nor has he up to this time, recalled his proclamation which declared the inhabitants of Arkansas in a state of insurrection against the United States."

I have drawn this resolution to meet that case, by authorizing the President to rescind that portion of his proclamation. The committee further

state:

"When the rebellion in Arkansas shall have been so far suppressed that the loyal inhabitants thereof shall be free to reestablish their State government upon a republican foundation, or to recognize the one already set up, and by the aid and not in subordination to the military to maintain the same, they will then, and not before, in the opinion of your committee, be entitled to a representation in Congress, and to participate in the administration of the Federal Government."

All I desire to say is, that I think that state of things has now arrived. I have before me some evidence of that fact, which I propose to send to the committee. The best evidence that I can think of is the report of the military commander of that department. I know there are conflicting opinions in regard to the fact, but I think we are bound to take the best testimony. I have before me a communication from the commander of that department, and also from the late Provost Marshal General upon this very point, in relation to which I think the Senate, and perhaps the country, have labored under a misapprehension. The Provost Marshal General, in a letter to the President of the United States, says, speaking of the condition of Arkansas:

"At no time has it been so free from hostile tread, and It can be truly said that no portion of the territory in dispute is so thoroughly regained. I have to day received my honorable discharge from the service, and I feel at liberty to make some statements to you which I could not so properly have done while in odlice, that bear directly on this point.

"I have filled the office of Provost Marshal General since the occupation of Little Rock until to-day, and have organized a very thorough system of secret service. The result of the information which has of late been obtained establishes conclusively the fact, that since the disastrous failure of General Price's raid the enemy had resolved on the abandonment of the State of Arkansas, and fixing their line of defense on Red river."

He goes on to state that at no time was the State so completely in the hands of the Union men and so completely recovered as at present.

I wish to call the attention of the Senate for one moment to the necessity of some action of this character. It is known to the Senate that under July 4, 1864, quartermasters, in procuring supa law passed at the last session, and approved plies in the States declared to be in insurrection, were not required to give vouchers. The Union man whose property is taken for the support of our Army cannot get pay for it in any of the districts that have been declared by the President to be in insurrection.

Let me say to the Senate, in this connection, that if we expect to cultivate a Union sentiment anywhere, especially in the districts that have been overrun by the rebellion, we must encourage the loyal men there; if we take their property we must pay for it; and we cannot pay for it under the law until that restriction is removed which declares this State, as well as others, in a state of insurrection. I have here a letter from Governor Murphy, in which he says that the citizens of Arkansas are preparing to go on their farms, raise crops, and make large improvements, but they are discouraged from doing so because everything they raise is liable to be taken to support the army at Fort Smith. We have always had a military post there; there is nothing new about that; but

when their property is thus taken, under the restriction upon trade which was put into the act of July 4, 1864, they are not paid for it. I shall not occupy the time of the Senate by reading these communications, but I desire to have them referred, with the joint resolution, to the Committee on the Judiciary.

rebellion for more than three years, and were in said state of armed rebellion on the 8th day of November, 1864: Therefore,

Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the States mentioned in the preamble to this joint resolution are not entitled to representation in the Electoral College for the choice of President and Vice President of the United States for the term of office commencing on the 4th day of March, 1865; and no electoral votes shall be received or counted from said States concerning the choice of President and Vice President for said term of office.

The amendment of the Committee on the Judiciary was to strike out of the preamble the folwords:

Mr. President, in my opinion the case of the State of Arkansas now commends itself to the Senate and to the country in a manner that it has never heretofore done. The Union men of Arkansas have suffered untold deprivations, and while we have extended the most cordial cooper-lowing ation to the Union men of Missouri and Kansas, and the anti-slavery men all through the West and We Southwest, we have left Arkansas alone. have not even smiled upon her. We have hardly bidden her welcome when she has been struggling and making efforts to return to the Union and restore her government.

I want to say one thing more. This restored government of Arkansas ought not to be prejudiced on account of any convictions individuals may have in regard to the amnesty proclamation. I know that a portion of the Senate, as well as of the country, conceive the idea that every State ought to come back under some general law, and that we ought not to take back one State at a time. My conviction is that the government in each State should be restored and should stand upon. its own merits, and that we cannot make any general law for the return of these States any more than we can make a general law for the admission of new Territories.

It is nothing new to have a State government protected by the military authority. When this subject comes up properly before the Senate I shall undertake to prove that the military authorities did not establish this State government, and consequently it was not established under the proclamation of the President of the 8th of December, 1863. It was a movement of the people. They commenced this movement on the 30th of October, and the President's proclamation was not issued until the 8th of December. There was a contest about it. When the President did issue his proclamation, he set the 28th of January as the day of election; but after he found the people were moving he submitted the whole matter to them. I will read a letter which the President himself wrote, in January, 1864, addressed to Hon. William M. Fishback. He says:

"When I fixed a plan for an election in Arkansas, I did it in ignorance that your convention was at the same work. Since I learned the latter fact I have been constantly trying to yield my plan to theirs. I have sent two letters to General Steele, and three or four dispatches to you and others, saying that he (General Steele) must be master, but that it will probably be best for him to keep the convention on its own plan."

So the President himself yielded the point in his proclamation, and allowed the election to be held and the convention to be organized according to the plan marked out by the people, and it was so organized. I have all the documents in the case, and I ask to have them referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, with the hope that this joint resolution will be favorably considered, and an early report made upon it.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The order to refer will be made.

REPRESENTATION IN ELECTORAL COLLEGE. Mr. TRUMBULL. The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the joint resolution (H. R. No. 126) declaring certain States not entitled to representation in the Electoral College, have instructed me to report the resolution back to the Senate with a recommendation that the resolution pass, and with an amendment to the preamble. I will ask for the consideration of the resolution at this time as the electoral votes are to be counted a week from to-day, and it may avoid difficulty in the canvass of the votes if the two Houses take action in regard to this matter prior to that time. No change is made in the House resolution; it is in print on Senators' tables, and they can see at once what it is.

There being no objection, the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the joint resolution; which was read, as follows:

Whereas the inhabitants and local authorities of the States of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Arkausas, and Tennessee rebelled against the Government of the United States, and have continued in a state of armed

And have continued in a state of armed rebellion for more than three years, and were in said state of arined rebellion on the 8th day of November, 1864.

And to insert the following in lieu thereof: And were in such state of rebellion on the 8th day of November, 1864, that no valid election for President and Vice President of the United States according to the Constitution and laws thereof was held therein on said day. Mr. TEN EYCK. Is this a proper time to move an amendment to that amendment as re

Ported by the committee?

The VICE PRESIDENT. It is.

Mr. TEN EYCK. Then I move to strike out the word "Louisiana" in the preamble.

The VICE PRESIDENT. That is not part of the amendment of the committee. The question is on the amendment reported by the committee.

The amendment was agreed to.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator's amendment would now be in order.

Mr. TEN EYCK. Imove to strike out of the preamble the word "Louisiana." I will simply state that it is a matter of history that the State of Louisiana has reorganized, or at least attempted to do so, and in the opinion of many, and perhaps most, of the loyal citizens that State, has reorganized as a State. It is a matter of history that they have elected State officers and a State Legislature; that they have elected members to a constitutional convention and framed a new constitution for that State; that that Legislature passed a law authorizing the election of electors for President and Vice President of the United States in the last presidential election, and that such electors have met and cast their votes. Under these circumstances I think there is a striking distinction between the State of Virginia and the State of Louisiana. My object in moving this

amendment is, under this state of facts, that some

opportunity may be afforded to a loyal people

who have suffered all the horrors of the rebellion, who have got the better of it, and put it under foot, of coming back and resuming their place in the councils of the nation.

SENATORS FROM NEVADA.

Mr. CONNESS. With the consent of the Senate, I wish to present the credentials of Hon. James W. Nye and Hon. William M. Stewart, Senators-elect from the State of Nevada.

I ask

that they be read and placed on file, and that the oath of office be administered to the Senators. The VICE PRESIDENT. There is a question pending.

Mr. CONNESS. I ask the unanimous consent of the Senate to allow this to be done.

Mr. SUMNER. It is a privileged question. The VICE PRESIDENT. In the opinion of the Chair it is a question of privilege.

Mr. DAVIS. I desire this subject to lie over until to-morrow. I promise the Senator from California that I will not ask any further postponement than to-morrow.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator submit any motion?

These being Senators

Mr. TRUMBULL. from a new State, it will be necessary to classify them and that they draw lots for the terms which they are to serve. I merely wish to inquire whether the arrangements have been made for that classification?

Mr. McDOUGALL. I suppose that will be in order after the Senators have taken the oath of office. They will then be classified as Senators.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair will inform the Senator from Illinois and the Senate that the necessary preparations have been made, and the classification can be made whenever the oath of office shall be administered. The credentials will be read.

The Secretary read the credentials.

Mr. DAVIS. I regret that I had not known yesterday that the credentials of these gentlemen were to be presented to-day. If I had, I should have interposed no objection to the matter being acted upon at this time, and I will merely state my reason for making a request now for postponement.

I think, sir, it is a correct principle that no. State, or no Territory assuming the forms of a State, can elect members to the Senate until such State be admitted into the Union; that no State can be admitted into the Union by any other authority than by the act of Congress; that it takes the action of Congress to admit a new State into the Union, and no other power or authority under the Government can do that act.

This State has not yet been admitted into the Union by an act of Congress. Until Congress has performed that act in due form I hold that it is not competent for the Legislature of Nevada to elect members to the Senate. That being the position which I believe to be the true constitutional principle, I was anxious, desirous, at least, to have had an opportunity to examine the precedents.

I merely state the reason, Mr. President, why I should prefer that the qualification of these gentlemen, if they are to be qualified as Senators, should be postponed until to-morrow. I will not ask a postponement for a longer time. By that time I promise to be ready with such precedents as I think pertinent.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator submit a motion?

Mr. DAVIS. I submit a motion to postpone the further consideration of the subject until to

morrow.

Mr. TRUMBULL. In regard to the election of Senators by a State before it has been formally admitted by Congress, the precedents have settled that question. Senators have been admitted uniformly from States which have organized their State governments and elected their Senators before the State was formally admitted. Mr. CONNESS. Under an enabling act. Mr. TRUMBULL. Yes, under an enabling act. It has been done in numerous cases. The question has been up once since I have been in the Senate. However upon original principles it might have been decided, where the Legislature of a newly-formed State has elected Senators, although the election has taken place before the State was formally admitted, the Senators have always been admitted to their seats, and the Senator from Kentucky will find that to be the case when he looks into the precedents. It has been uniformly so. I am not aware, however, whether the Senators in the present case were elected before the State was formally in the Union or not, nor is it material.

Mr. CONNESS. Will the Senator permit me to explain?

Mr. JOHNSON. It was after the State was admitted by the President's proclamation.

Mr. CONNESS. It was after the State was admitted by the proclamation of the President, under the enabling act preceding the organization.

Mr. TRUMBULL. It would be immaterial, according to the uniform practice of the Senate, whether it was so or not; but it seems in point of fact the Senators in this instance were elected after the State was formally admitted. The enabling act authorized the President to make proclamation declaring when this State was admitted. Nevada is a State admitted into the Union under the authority of Congress.

Mr. CONNESS. That proclamation, I will state, was issued by the President on the 31st of October.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I am aware that that proclamation has been issued, and by looking at the law authorizing Nevada to form a State constitution and be admitted into the Union it will be found that on complying with the provisions of the law it is made the duty of the President "to issue his proclamation declaring the State admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, without any further action whatever on the part of Congress." There is the law; there is the act of Congress declaring what the people of Nevada should do in order to entitle themselves to become a State of the Union, declaring that when these acts were performed it should be the duty of the President of the United