Page images
PDF
EPUB

to go.

the expenses of this war, and then not touch the raised to nine it would broaden the base of action. allowed the assertion to go sub silentio that I was property of the traitors who have occasioned all

If you could get a body of that size to agree to a opposed to, and an enemy of all confiscation, this, which, in my judgment, is within our reach. || proposition substantially, it would strengthen it | simply because it is not true. I have not quar, I think that a mistake is made in this motion in the Senate.

reled with any other man's plan at all. I think I to refer; but the motion to refer to-day does not Mr. CLARK. I have no objection to any par have done that which in my judgment would do come from an opponent of confiscation, but from | ticular number. I made the motion for a commil more to take and seize the property of rebels and a friend, and several friends around me think it || tee of five, in the first instance, and afterwards || put it into the fisc or coffer of the nation and make best to have it referred. I differ from them. Their | modified it to seven. If it is now thought advisa it a fund for the purpose of indemnifying the judgment may be, and very likely is, better than ble to have nine, I have no objection to that. country than any of those who have offered bills mine; but if they thought as I do, we would vote Mr. WILSON, of Massachusetts. I move to for that purpose. I have done it in a way that no down this motion to refer. If those in the Sen amend the motion, so that the committee shall man can doubt the constitutionality of it. Noate who I believe are for confisealion had rallied consist of nine members.

body can say that the bill that I have offered is and voted together, I believe we could have had Mr. CLARK. I accept that modification, if it liable to a constitutional objection. I have not a vole before this hour on the main proposition, || is desired.

heard anybody say so. It goes as far as to outinstead of wasting this whole day upon this mo The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The motion be- | law the rebel, and to outlaw him according to a tion. We have accomplished nothing to-day. 1 | fore the Senate is that ihis bill, with all the accom- process which has existed and been handed down know not whether we shall get a vote upon the | panying propositions of amendment, be commit io us from our ancestors, for thousands of years, question of reference. But, sir, I do not know ied to a special committee of nine members. a part of the learning of the law books which is how it is that five or seven members of the body Mr. COWAN. I merely wish to utter a single so distasteful to some gentlemen on this floor that will be able to settle the Constitution for the forty word of explanation. I have been alluded to very a man is likely to be tabooed if he refers to it. or forty-five others who are not upon that com freely during the debate all this afternoon; and I I do not know why that should be so. I do not mittee. I do not know what light even my friend should not have thought fit to say anything about | know why a lawyer, and a very good lawyer, from Maine will get from the consultations of this it were it not that when the report of it goes out should entertain that opinion. I do not know committee, unless he should be one of them, as I to the country it will go out, as they have gone either that it is necessary it should be uttered, in hope he may be. He may, if he is one of them, | universally, misrepresenting me. Why I am so order to do what? To ingratiate a man's self with satisfy himself, and by turning his attention to much alluded to at all times and upon all occa the mob, to teach our people to have disrespect for these matters, which, it seems, he has not been | sions, I cannot for the life of me conceive. The a learned profession; one which stands by their able hitherto lo examine, he may satisfy the Sen- / phrase has become so pat upon the tongue that it rights, one to which they appeal in all cases of ate.

repeats it as it were a trick, that I am the “en- trouble and difficulty; one which I venture to say Sir, I will conclude what little I have to say- ||emy of all confiscation." I do not object to the is as true to its trusts at all times as any in the and I should not have said anything except as word "enemy." Gentlemen may use of

enemy,' country. I do not know any reason why these called for by the remarks of the Senator from or “ opponent,” or what they choose, provided sneers should be thrown at that profession. I Matne-by expressing my gratification in learn that the fact, when asserted, is true. Why, sir, I think it would be a great deal better for every one ing that he is for a confiscation bill just as far as I esteem myself the very Ajax Telamon of effects of us if we were to consult our books oftener, and the limits of the Constitution will allow him to live confiscation. [Laughter.] I think myself, I think the spectacle which we have been witnessgo; and beyond that I would certainly not ask him and I have a right to entertain a high opinion of ing here in this Senate for some time is one of the

myself as well as other gentlemen-ihat I am the best evidences of that fact. If, when we began Mr. FESSENDEN. I wish to say one word | especial apostle of a great confiscation, and an this business, we had sat down carefully to examof explanation. Something that was dropped by | effective one. I have said over and over again ine and see what power we had under the Conmy friend from Illinois leads me to the suspicion that your legislative confiscation here was a mere stitution, how we were limited and restrained by that he infers from what I said that I designated | brutum fulmen, which amounted to nothing. Mine | it, perhaps we should have been saved much of the certain gentlemen as wishing to go beyond the would

mortification which has resulted from a premature constitutional limits, in opposition to those who Mr. DAVIS. If the gentleman will allow me, | attempt to adjust a scheme and exercise a power were not disposed to do so. I meant to convey I dispute that honor with him. I think I am the which all inust agree is by no means as clear as no such idea. All I intended to say, and I suspect best confiscation man in this body. (Laughter.] some think it is. all I did say, for I believe it must arise rather Mr. COWAN. I yield to the gentleman's age We have been told, too, that the people will from the suspicion of my friend than otherwise, only. (Laughter.]

feel sad and sorry when they find that there is no was that here were a number of bills; I perceived Well, sir, I have said over and over again that measure of confiscation such as is contemplated on one side, with regard to some of them, several I was perfectly willing that the President, with here to go forth to gratify them. Mr. President, gentlemen had constitutional scruples with ref his army of seven hundred thousand men, should I do not know how it is as to the people who are erence to the bills which they did not approve, go on and apply that force to the rebellion, to take, spoken of, but I know as to the people of my own and to which they proposed amendments; but seize, and confiscate everything which he and his Siate, and I can say to the Senate that the people they were willing to go as far as, in their judg- generals in their judgment thought proper. It was there with whom I have conversed bave sense ment, the limits of the Constitution would allow. their judgment I submitted to; but I'was not a enough to know that confiscation has never been Far be it from me o suppose that any member of general, (although, perhaps, I might be quite as a fit and proper remedy for the purpose of reconthe Senate, more particularly my honorable friend good a general as some of the parlor heroes who | ciling a rebellion, and bringing back people who from Mlinois, for whom I have the highest regard | know so much about the war, and the best way are temporarily hostile to reunite with each other, and respect always, would go one single inch be to put down the rebellion)-I therefore left it to and live as heretofore, fellow-citizens under the yond what he supposed the Constitution allowed | the judgment of the generals to do everything, no same Government, him to go. I have that sort of respect for every matter what, which would tend to put down the Mr. IIALE. Then why go for it? member of the Senate, that I do not suppose such rebellion. If that is not confiscation enough, I Mr. COWAN. I go for it as a measure of war. a thing possible in any case. Still, we may differ do not know what gentlemen want. They do not I leave it in the hands of the commander of the upon that subject, and we do differ, and I believe I expect to confiscate property until it is taken. I| Army, and of the Army itself. That is not lethat something is due to the scruples of men who I say, go and take ii; take all you can. I have | gislative confiscation, but a very different thing. are not quite so broad in their views of that instru. || advised that we ought not to talk quite so much || This confiscation is to be done by the Legislature; ment as others, and that it is important and use- || about it until it was taken. I thought we were and you decide here that these people are guilty, ful in all cases, if we can do it, to find a common making rather extensive preparations to cook the and you decide what punishment they shall sufground which we can all stand upon without vio- || hare before we caught it." Go, then, and take this | fer, and you deny them all the right of trial. To lating the scruples of anybody. That is simply property, and after it is taken, if you want to con that I object. When the President, with the war the idea I meant to convey.

fiscate it in the real sense of the word, that is, get | power in his hand—the force of the nation-seizes As to the suggestion that I should not be likely | it into the Treasury, enact such a law as will get upon the property of the rebel, he takes him in to get any light from the deliberations of five men it there. This we are competent to do. We are the fact; no trial is needed, and I am willing that unless I was one of them, I suppose that was a competent to dispose of the plunder, the booty, it shall be so. sort of hit which my friend intended to be a little the prize; but we cannot take it; no law will take The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is the Senate sharp on me. All I have to say about that is, that it. It must be taken by force, if it belongs to an ready for the question on the motion to refer? really I do think that even if I am not one of them, enemy.

Mr. CLARK. I hope we shall come to a vote the deliberations of five of our respected fellows Gentlemen seem to find so much fault with this in this Hall, looking at the subject conscientiously | opinion of mine, that because

gave the Presi

Mr. FOSTER called for the yeas and nays; and and with a desire to come to The truth, could en dent full, ample authority to meet this rebellion they were ordered; and being taken, resulted-yeas lighten me, more especially as I have had no op and put it down, I was charged with not under 24, nays 14; as follows: portunity to enlighten myself. If my friend would || standing the true spirit of our institutions, and YEAS-Messrs. Anthony, Browning, Clark, Collamer, allow me to reply in the same sort of spirit, but making a despot of ihe President. I am very free Cowan, Davis, Doolittle, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Harris, good-naturedly, I should not hope that any de to confess I do not understand that, and do not Henderson, Ilowe, Kennedy, McDougall, Morrill, Powell, liberation of anybody would enlighten him. know any reason why that should be so. Are

Saulsbury, Simmons, Stark, Sumner, Willey, Wilson of

Massachusetts, and Wilson of Missouri-24. Mr. WILSON, of Massachusetts. The indi- | gentlemen fearful that the President will hurt the NAYS–Messrs. Chandler, Dixon, Grimes, Male, Harlan, cations are that the motion made by the Senator rebels with his despotic authority! If I have King, Lane of Indiana, Lane of Kansas, Ponteroy, Sherfrom New Hampshire to commit ihis bill to a heard any complaint at all, it is that he is not des man, Ten Eyek, Trumbull, Wade, and Wrighil–14. special committee will receive the support of the l potic enough, that the force is not applied with The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The motion Senate. I suggest to the Senator who proposed sufficient rapidity, with sufficient vigor to make is agreed to; and the bill, with the accompanying to make it a committee of seven, that he make the it effective. I have not thrown a straw in the way propositions of amendment, is referred to a select committee to consist of nine members. We have of the application of that force.

committee of nine; but the proposition does not a large breadth of country, and men who have Therefore I make these remarks simply in embrace the mode of appointing that committee. expressed various opinions and who entertain va der that when the report of this day's proceedings Several Senators. Let it be appointed by the rious opinions here, and if the committee were goes abroad, it may not appear that I sat by and Chair.

now.

or

ap

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. If such be the day, and call the attention of the House to them, Mr. WICKLIFFE, Is there a report in this pleasure of the Senate, the Chair will perform and dispose of them if possible, if it is agreeable || case? I do not like to vote upon such a resolution ihat duty. ["Agreed."']

to the House. It is suggested, however, that the unless I know the grounds.

morning hour be devoted to the call of commitTIE TAX BILL.

Mr. BINGHAM. Let the report be read. It tees. Is that the business in order if I do not call is very brief. Mr. FESSENDEN. I am instructed by the up the election cases?

The Clerk read the report, as follows: Committee on Finance to report back the bill (H. The SPEAKER. The bill to grant pensions, The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred R. No. 312) to provide internal revenue to support the Government and pay interest on the pub= l reported from the Committee on Invalid Pensions, | by the House a resolution of inguiry into the alleged official was assigned as a special order for to-day, and at

misconduct of West H. Humphreys, a judge of ihe United lic debt, with divers and sundry amendments;

States district court for the several districts in the State of two o'clock the vote is to be taken upon the Pa Tennessee, respectfully report : and I ask that the bill and amendments be printed. cific railroad bill.

That by the letter of Hon. Edward Bates, Attorney GenThe PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill and

eral of the United States, of date 25th February, 1862, it apamendments will be printed, as a matter of course,

PUNISHMENT OF FRAUDS.

pears that West II. Humphreys was commissioned United under the rule.

Mr. COLFAX, by unanimous consent, and in

States district judge for the three districts of the State of Mr. McDOUGALL. As one of the members

Tennessee on the 26th day of March, 1853; that he still pursuance of previous notice, introduced a bill to

holds and has not resigned said comınission. of the Committee on Finance, I desire to say that punish frauds on the Treasury; which was read Your committee further report that by the testimony of the committee were not unanimous in their å first and second time, and referred to the Com Hon. Horace Maynard, Mr. Trigg, and Mr. Lellyett, all proval of the measure as it is now reported in sub mittee on the Judiciary.

citizens of the State of Tennessee, who, by order of the

House, were duly examined upon oath before said comstance the same as it came from the House of Rep Mr. DUELL. I ask the unanimous consent

mittee, it is made to appear to the cominittee that said West resentatives. I have in my hands a substitute for of the House to report a joint resolution from the H. Humphreys, in a public meeting lield in the city of Nashthe bill as reported, which I propose to offer. I Committee on Revolutionary Claims, and I desire ville, in said State, on the 29th December, 1860, in a dismay say that I voted that the chairman might re- || its consideration now,

cussion then and there held, declared in favor of secession, port the bill as he has done; but with the under The SPEAKER. There are already two mat

and refused, when interrogated, to declare South Carolina

subject to the laws of the United States. It also appears standing at the same time that I should offer my ters before the House. The regular order of busi by said testimony that said Humphreys, about that time, substitute in the Senate. I now present a meas ness is the special order.

published articles in the newspapers, ai Nashville, in whichi ure which I ask the Senate to have printed, which Mr. DUELL. I observe that the gentleman

" he took strong ground in favor of secession." (See testi

mony of Mr. Lellyett.) embodies, in substance, the views of the Board of from Maine, (Mr. Goodwin,) who has charge of

It further appears, upon said testimony, that said West Trade of Boston-represented here by very able the pension bill, is not now in the House.

H. Humphreys has neglected his duties as United States men, who understand the subject of finance prob The SPEAKER. That does not prevent the district judge within said State ever since the adoption of ably as well as Senators-the Chamber of Com House from acting on the bill.

the ordinance of secession by the Legislature, in May, 1861;

that be refused to hold his court because he considered the merce of New York, and the Board of Trade of Mr. DUELL, I suppose that by unanimous

autliority of the United States obsolete in Tennessee, and Philadelphia, and representing the best opinion consent my report can be received.

that since that time he has officiated as judge for the rebel that I have been able to gather. I will say now Mr. DA WES. I believe I shall have to inter confederacy in that State, and has held citizens of the that I think the measure I present will yield the vene. I call up the report of the Committee of

United States to answer before him, as such rebel judge,

for disloyalty to said rebel confederacy; has advised a citiGovernment as much revenue as the bill of the Elections on the memorial of F. F. Lowe, pray zen so charged and brought before him to forswear his alHouse of Representatives, as reported from the ing for admission to a seat in this House as a legiance to the United States by taking the oath of allegiance committee by its majority. As the question is a Representative from the State of California. to the self-styled “southern confederacy,” avd upon refusal grave one-thiuk one of the gravest that has come Mr. LOVEJOY. Is there not a special order

so to do, said judge lias required of sucli citizen a bond in

a large sum, conditioned that be would leave said Stare, the before the country-I desire that the substitute I this morning?

place of his residence, within forty days, pursuant to an act now submit may be printed.

The SPEAKER. Not that overrides a ques known as an “alien act," passed by the rebel congress of The PRESIDENT' pro tempore. The Senator tion of privilege.

said confederacy.

It further appears by said testimony, that said West I. from California offers a paper embodying the

REBEL BARBARITIES.

Humphreys has within said State, as such judge for said views of the minority of ihe Committee on Fi.

Mr.CLARK. I ask the gentleman from Mas

soutliern confederacy, entertained proceedings under the nance, whose report has just been presented upon

treasonable acts of the congress thereof for the confiscation that bill, and moves that that be received and

sachusetts to allow me to make a report from the of the property of loyal citizens of the United States to the printed. Committee on Printing.

use of said confederacy, and in aid of the rebellion now The motion was agreed to.

Mr. DAWES. I have no objection.

prosecuted by the same against the United States.

Mr. CLARK, from the Committee on Print Mr. WICKLIFFE. I am satisfied now. I Mr. SUMNER. I move that three thousand extra copies of the bill, with the accompanying read, considered, and agreed to:

have heard enough. ing, submitted the following resolution; which was

Mr. MAYNARD. Mr. Speaker, if any memamendments as reported by the committee, be

Resolved, that there be printed for the use of the mem ber desires any further statement to be made, and printed for the use of the Senate.

bers of this House, fifty thousand copies of the report of the House will give me permission, I will state The PRESIDENT pro tempore. That motion the joint committee on the conduct of the war, submitted such facts as are within my knowledge. gocs to the Committee on Printing under the rule. to the Senate on the 30th of April last, in response to the Mr. SUMNER. I think there may be unaniresolution of the Senate directing the committee to collect

The SPEAKER. If there is no objection, the evidence with regard to the barbarous treatment by the gentleman will make his statement. mous consent to act upon it now.

rebels at Manassas of the remains of officers and soldiers There was no objection. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. If no objec of the United States killed in battle there.

Mr. MAYNARD. Without going into details, tion be made, the motion will be entertained. No

LAKE DEFENSES.

I will state that this is the case of a Federal judge objection being made, the Senate unanimously agree to the motion.

Mr. ARNOLD, by unanimous consent, from

who has retained his commission under the GovMr. SIMMONS. I wish to say that, although the special committee on lake defenses, reported

ernment of the United States, but who was an I believe there was a general concurrence of the

a bill to establish additional defenses on the north early, original, active secessionist, and has recommittee that this bill should be reported, 1 for ern lakes; which was read a first and second time,

ceived and acted upon a commission as judge one was not exactly in favor of all its provisions, recommitted to the special committee, and orderd

under the self-styled confederate government. and I think I can say for several others that they to be printed.

Acting under that commission, so far as I know,

he has had little occasion to adjudicate private were not; but I shall not speak for anybody but IMPEACIIMENT OF JUDGE UUMPHREYS.

rights, but has been engaged mainly in the adjumyself. When the proper time comes, I intend Mr. DAWES resumed the floor.

dication of political questions, in confiscating the to move some important amendments, and I shall

Mr. BINGHAM. I ask the gentleman from property of non-residents and of Union citizens, try to get them printed to-morrow if I can. I

Massachusetts to allow me to ask the House to and trying persons charged with disloyalty to the merely wish to say this, so that the printing of

take up and pass a resolution reported by the Ju- || confederate government. When the Federal troops this bill entire as reported shall not go to the coun

diciary Committee about a month since, and or arrived in the city of Nashville, he hastened away try as the exact expression of a majority of the

dered to be printed together with the testimony, with great speed. It is a case, so far as these facis Committee on Finance, although they all assent

in the matter of the impeachment of West H. are concerned, beyond all controversy, and it calls to its being printed, and they were anxious to

for the intervention of the Government to remove get it before the Senate. It has been a long while Humphreys, judge of the district court of the Uni

ted Siates in Tennessee. I make the request at him and place a loyal man in his seat. in their hands.

the instance of one of the Representatives from Į will say to my friend from Kentucky, (Mr. EXECUTIVE SESSION.

Tennessee, who thinks it very important for the WICKLIFFE,) that it was under his ndministration On motion of Mr. HALE, the Senate proceeded | administration of justice in that State that the that his own judge, Mr. Monroe, went through to the consideration of executive business; and matter should be disposed of.

the solemn form of renouncing his allegiance to after some time spent in executive session, the Mr. DAWES. Will the gentleman indicale the Government of the United States, and declar. doors were reopened, and the Senate adjourned. about how long it will take?

ing his intention to become a citizen of the conMr. BINGHAM. It will not take any time at federate States.

all. The evidence has been printed and has been The resolution reported by the Committee on HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

before the House for a month, and it leaves no Judiciary was agreed to.
TUESDAY, May 6, 1862.
room for doubt at all upon the subject.

Mr. BINGHAM. The report having been The House met at twelve o'clock, m. Prayer

Mr. DAWES. 1 yield, then.

adopted, I offer the following resolution: by the Chaplain, Rev. Thomas H. STOCKTON.

The resolution reported by the Judiciary Com Resolved, That a committee of two be appointed to go to The Journal of yesterday was read and approved. mittee was read, as follows:

the Senate, and at the bar thereof, in the name of the House Resolved, That West II. Humphreys, judge of the district

of Representatives and of all the people of the United States, ORDER OF BUSINESS. court of Vic United States for the several districts of Ten

to impeach West H. Humphreys, judge of the district court

of the United States for the several districts of Tennessee, The SPEAKER stated that the business first ressee, be impeached of bigli erimes and misdemeanors.

of bigi crimes and misdemeanors, and to acquaint the Senin order was the special order assigned for this Mr. BINGHAM. I ask the previous question ate that the House of Representatives will in due time exday, being the bill to grant pensions. on the adoption of the resolution.

bibit particular articles of impeachment against hun and Mr. DÄWES. I rise to a question of privi The previous question was seconded, and the

make good the same, and thai the committee de demand

that the Senate take order for the appearance of said West lege. I propose to take up the election cases to muin question ordered.

H. Humphreys to answer said impeachment.

I will only state that the resolution follows thesion, the two who received the highest number pleted and retumed into the office of the Department of the usual precedents in such cases.

of votes. The third is the memorialist, F. F. Interior, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Interior Mr. WICKLIFFE. I would inquire whether Lowe.

to ascertain," &c. this House should not frame articles of impeach Heretofore Congress has provided once in ten The operative words of this section which carry ment and send copies of them to the Senate? years for the taking of a census, and immediately it forward to any subsequent census are these few

Mr. BINGHAM. I will say to the gentleman || after the taking of the census, has provided also || words: "and any subsequent enumeration." It is that, according to the precedents in all cases here- || by special act for the apportionment of the num- | by force of these words only that the apportiontofore of this character, the House appoints a com ber of Representatives to which each State is en ment, which is generally understood to apply to mission to frame articles of impeachment after this titled in this House. In 1850, in providing for the Thirty-Eighth and future Congresses, is astransaction shall have been completed, after no the taking of the seventh census, Congress under certained by the Secretary of the Interior. Now, tice has been given to the Senate, and the Senate | took to make a permanent system, both for taking the memorialist says, if I may be permitted to shall have brought the person accused to its bar, the census thereafter and for subsequent appor- repeat what his claim is at this time and in this or served personal notice upon him, so as to have tionments, based upon the result of these enumer connection, that this act provided that the census jurisdiction in the case. The proceeding to which ations. It is upon the construction of that statute, of 1860 should be completed on the 1st day of the gentleman refers will come afterwards. I call as applicable to the eighth census and the appor- November, 1860, just as it provides that the centhe previous question on the adoption of the res tionment under it, that the question arises. sus of 1850 shall be completed by the 1st day of olution.

The memorialist claims that while that statute November of that year. And then he says that The previous question was seconded, and the provides expressly that the apportionment under it provides that the Secretary of the Interior shall main question ordered; and under the operation ihe seventh census, namely, ihe census taken in “ immediately" make this apportionment, and thereof, the resolution was agreed to.

1850, should take effect from and after the 3d of that, “as soon as practicable," he shall notify the

March, 1853, that it made no such provision as to House of Representatives thereof, and that,"withSPANISH BARK PROVIDENCIA.

when the apportionment under the census of 1860 out delay," he shall notify the Executives of the Mr. DAWES obtained the floor. should take effect; but that having provided that

several States thereof. He thinks, therefore, it Mr. COX. Will the gentleman give way to me as soon as the census should have been completed, follows that all this must be done before the 3d of for a moment?

the Secretary of the Interior, by the rules pro- | March, 1861, when this Congress commences, Mr. DAWES. For what purpose ? vided in the statute, should “ immediatelyappor

and that, therefore, the apportionment applies to Mr. COX. I want to ask leave of

the House

tion the Representatives to the several States; and this Congress. to report back from the Committee on Foreign Af- that, “ as soon as practicable,” should notify the But the mistake fallen into by the memorialist fairs a Senate bill in relation to a vessel that was

House of Representatives thereof, and should, is this: he says in his memorial-and the same captured wrongfully by the blockading squadron. || " without delay," notify the Governors of the sev- || language is adopted in the views of the minorityIt is the last of a class of these cases, and is a bill

eral States thereof; it is claimed by the memorialist that section first of the act providing for the cenfor the relief of the owners, officers, and crew of | that it follows, inasmuch as he says that it also sus provides that the marshals shall cause the the Spanish bark Providencia.

provides that the census shall be completed on or census to be taken and returned to the Secretary Mr. DAWES. Does the gentleman desire to before the 1st day of November, 1860, that there of the Interior on or before the lst day of Novemput it upon its passage?

fore the apportionment,

which the statute provides | ber, 1850," and every tenth year thereafter.Now, Mr. COX. I do.

shall be made by the Secretary of the Interior, by recurring to the first section of the act, you Mr. DAWES. If it does not give rise to debate should take effect on the 3d of March, 1861, fol

will find that that is a mistake. The first secI will not object. Jowing. Or, if that be not true, the memorialist

tion does not make such a provision. It only proMr. COX. I do not think it will give rise to claims further that, inasmuch as the apportion- | vides for taking the census of 1850; and you can any debate. It is recommended by the President

ment is dependent upon the number of inhabit find nowhere in the act any express provision that in his special message. The award amounts to ants, and as the number of inhabitants is ascer the census of 1860 shall even be taken in that year $2,501 91. The bill has passed the Senate. tained by the census, the right to representation at all, or shall commence on the 1st day of June

The SPEAKER. The Chair will suggest to depends upon the fact of enumeration, and not and close on the 1st day of November, 1860. You the gentleman from Ohio that no debate is in order upon the time when the certificate of apportion- | find no such provision in the act at all. You must until the House first gives consent to the report ment shall actually have been made by the Secrc

look elsewhere for it. You must look to the coning of the bill.

tary of the Interior; that, therefore, inasmuch as stitutional provision for the construction of this Mr. COX. Well, sir, I ask the unanimous it is claimed that the enumeration ascertained be statute as a whole, and for the purpose and the consent of the House to report the bin.

fore the 1st day of November, 1860, the number object of the statute. The Constitution provides There being no objection, the bill was reported of inhabitants, it gives the right to California from for the taking of a census. It is generally underfrom the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

that day to three Representatives in Congress, of stood that the Constitution provides for the takThe bill was ordered to a third reading, and was which she could not be deprived so long as the ing of a census once in every ten years—in the accordingly read the third time, and passed. law remained in force.

years 1790, 1800, 1810, and so on; but on turning Mr.Cox moved to reconsider the vote by which This is the claim of the memorialist and of the io the Constitution you only find that it provides the bill was passed; and also moved to lay the State of California. The Committee of Elections that a census shall be taken as often as once in motion to reconsider on the table.

were of the opinion that it rested upon an entirely every ten years. I have not a copy of the ConThe latter motion was agreed to.

mistaken construction of the statute of 1850 pro stitution by me, but that is the provision. The CALIFORNIA ELECTION.

viding for 1 permanent system for taking the cen Constitution provides that it shall be taken once

sus and apportioning the Representatives based in every ten years. There is no provision that it Mr. DAWES. I now call up the case of F. upon it. That statute is found in the ninth vol shall not be taken once in every five years; but it F. Lowe, claiming a seat in the House as a Rep ume Statutes at Large, page 428. It provided, in is provided that it must be taken within three resentative from the State of California.

the first instance, for the taking the census of 1850, years after the first meeting of Congress, and The resolution was read, as follows:

and went through with the entire machinery ne within every subsequent term of ten years. The Resolved, That F. F. Lowe is not entitled to a seat' in cessary for the taking of that census, as though Constitution provides that the first census shall this House as a Representagve from the State of California that was the sole purpose of the law. But it then

be taken within three years after the meeting of in the Thirty-Seventh Congress.

attached to the aci a rule by which the apportion- | the First Congress. The Constitution did not proMr. DAWES. The report of the committee, ment of Representatives, as ascertained by that vide for taking the first census in 1790, but it proas well as the claim of the memorialist, is founded census, was to be determined. It then provided vided that it should be taken within three years upon a construction of the statute and of the Con what never had been done by these acts before,

of the first session of Congress. The contempostitution of the United States, and I shall be ob it provided, before the census had been taken, how raneous legislation amounts to a construction of liged to beg the attention of the House, as close large the House of Representatives should be after this part of the Constitution well nigh equivalent as it may be disposed to give it, not only to what the census was taken, and then provided by what to a constitutional provision itself. It is continI may offer myself, but to what may be offered rule that given number of two hundred and thir uous; it is without conflict; it is the construction upon the other side, in order to understand clearly ty-three should be distributed among the several of the day, and contemporaneous with its adopand really what are the merits of the case. States of the Union.

tion. The report is House Document No. 79, and That made a complete law for the census then Immediately on the first meeting of Congress there accompany it also the views of the minority about to be taken in the year of 1850. It then it provided for taking a census in 1790. li has of the committee.

undertook to apply that rule to future censuses provided ever since by special statute for taking I will state the basis of this claim, and the and future apportionments. It did that by pro che census in 1800, 1810, 1820, 1830, 1840, and grounds upon which the Committee of Elections viding, in the iwenty-fourth section:

1850, and there it stopped. Connected with and have come to the conclusion that the memorialist

« That if no other law be passed providing for the taking as a part of this provision of the Constitution, is not entitled to a seat in the House.

of the eighth, or any subsequent census of the United States, comes the provision for an apportionment based The claim is based upon the ground that the

on or before the 1st day of January of any year wlien, by
the Constitution of the United States, any future enumer-

on it. The Constitution has received the connew apportionment applies to the present Conation of the indiabitants thereof is required to be taken, such

struction that there can be but one census taken gress, and took effect on the 3d of March, 1861. census shall in all things be taken and completed according in every ten years, and on the recurrence of the California, under the old apportionment, is enti to the provisions of this act."

year specified in the several acts based upon this tled to two Representatives. Under the new ap That section of the law, in the absence of any provision of the Constitution, and necessarily conportionment she is entitled to three. It is the

subsequent law on the subject, applied the pro- nected with it under the Constitution itself is a elaim of the memorialist and of the State of Cali visions of that act to any subsequent census about provision forapportioning Representatives among fornia that the new apportionment applies to this, to be taken. It then undertook to apply the same

ihe several States according to the enumeration. the Thirty-Seventh Congress; that therefore California is entitled to three Representatives, and she any future census, by this provision:

census provided for the first apportionment, and did accordingly proceed to elect three Represent

then afterwards for the second, and for the third,

“So soon as the next and any subsequent enumeration of atives. Two of them were admitted to seats upon the inhabiuants of the several States directed by the Con

and for the fourth, and for the fifth, and for the this floor at the commencement of the present ses stitution of the United States to be taken shall be com sixth, and for the seventh. It provided that the

first apportionment should take effect from and notify the House of Representatives, and to make teen new ones to supply their places. The same after the 3d day of March, 1793; the second from out a certificate notifying all the Executives of is true of Pennsylvania; the same is true of Newand after the 3d day of March, 1803; the third the several States of the number of members to York; and the same is true of every State which from and after the 3d day of March, 1813, and so which each State was severally entitled. All that is here represented in excess of its right under the on in reference to the fourth, fifth, sixth, and sev. was to be done between November, 1860, and new apportionment, provided that the claim of the enth, in 1823, 1833, 1843, and 1853, without excep March, 1861.

memorialist is correct. In other words, it is uttion and without qualification.

terly give Along with this construction which they have of put on the Constitution, as to the taking of the States within that time; and further than that, it become dissolved in order to be reorganized under census, they have put a construction as to the ap: was necessary to hold elections in the several the new apportionment bill, to which California portionment, based on the enumeration. Now, if States according to that apportionment between alone has conformed. But this Co has itit follows that there is a constitutional provision | the 1st of November and the 3d of March, 1861, self determined that question, in a bill passed in for the taking of a census only once in every ten else whenever the 4th of March came, whatever the month of March last, to give to the several years, then it also follows that there is the same might be the exigencies of the public service, States therein named a greater number of Repreconstitutional provision for the apportionment whatever might be the peril of the country, there sentatives than the apportionment under the statbascd on that census only once in every ten years. would be no Congress in existence, and there ute of 1850 had given them, and it was therein The men who made this Constitution, in the First would be no power in the States to elect one. expressly enacted that the act should take effect Congress, fixed the time when the apportionment Mr. SHEFFIELD. I desire to ask the gen from and after the 3d day of March, 1863. The should take effect, namely,on the 3d day of March, || tleman a question.

title of the act is “ An act fixing the number of 1793, and every ten years thereafter. That ex Mr. DAWES. Certainly.

the House of Representatives from and after the ample has been followed by Congress. If, there Mr.SHEFFIELD. I desire to know if the ap 3d of March, 1863," and it enacts: fore, there is a constitutional provision that there portionment made under which the member from That from and after the 3d day of March, 1863, the numshould be a period of ten years between the sev California claims a seat is the legal and proper

ber of members of the House of Representatives of the Coneral apportionments, as it has been determined by apportionment, has there been a legal election of

gress of the United States shall be two hundred and forty

ome: and the eight additional members shall be assigned legislation there should be between the several members of Congress in New York, Ohio, Penn one each, to Pennsylvania, Ohio, Kentucky, Illinois, Iowa, enumerations provided for in the Constitution, then | sylvania, and other States?

Minnesota, Vermont, and Rhode Island," it follows that this apportionment should take effect Mr. DAWES. I propose to call the attention So that this Congress has, by that bill, without on the 30 day of March, 1863, instead of 1861, else of the House to that point in a few moments. I division in either branch, deiermined that this you make the period between the seventh and the was about to say that this construction imposes apportionment shall apply to the next Congress, eighth apportionments cight years, while between upon all parties connected with this matter-upon and commence there. Then it will be in accordall the rest it is ten years,

the Legislatures and upon the people of the several ance with all precedent and all constitutional conThere is another consideration. The act must | States-all this work between the 1st of Novem struction, and then California will be entitled to be taken as a whole, and there being no provision | ber, 1860, and the 3d of March, 1861. It is a well- | three members. in the act when this eighth census should begin known fact that a majority of this House was Now, in point of fact, as will be seen by a letand when it should end, you must find that pro elected before the 1st of November came around. ter addressed to the committee by the Secretary of vision in the constitutional application, and also That was the case in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Mis the Interior, that the enumeration upon which in the act itself, which, taken as a whole, its de souri, Vermont, and a great many other States. Of this provision was made, was not entirely comsign and purpose are perfectly apparent. It is course, they must have been elected under the old

pleted and returned into the office of the Secretary that all the machinery of that act as applicable to | apportionment, because the apportionment under of the Interior until the 16th day of March, 1861. the census of 1850 shall be applicable to the census the new census and the census itself had not been It was therefore impossible to have completed the following. In other words, the act is to be moved then made. Besides, the Legislatures of many of apportionment by ihe 3d of March, 1861, and it along as a whole to the next census, and applied the States did not meet at all between November is not to be supposed that it would have escaped to that. It was provided in that act that the census and March, and the time for holding those elec the notice of Congress, when they enacted that of 1850 should commence in June, 1850, and end tions, according to immemorial usage of many of law, that accident or negligence mighi in some in November, 1850; and when it is applied to the the States, is fixed by statute before the 1st of case cause a failure to bring the returns in before census of 1860, it should be June, 1860, and No November. In some States, the time is fixed by the 3d of March next following, so that they could vember, 1860. Taking that rule and applying it the constitution of the State itself before that day. make the apportionment by that time. to the apportionment in the same act and that ex Now, to suppose that a change so radical, impos Now, a word as to the objections made by this press provision of the act which says that the ing such new obligations upon the States, and memorialist. The first is, that if he is not elected apportionment for 1850 shall take effect from and such burdens also, should have been intended in to this House, then the other two members from after the 31 day of March, 1853, we must see the passage of a bill making the apportionment, California are not elected; because he says, that that the apportionment for 1860 must take effect without any allusion to it by either its friends or as California elected three members, he is as much from and after the 30 day of March, 1863, other its enemies, is hardly probable, to say the least. entitled to a seat as the other two. In that objecwise you have no provision when the census shall But, sir, another objection to the construction tion he forgets the fact that California elects by commence and when it shall end, and when the claimed by the memorialist is that which has been plurality. It appears from his own certificate that apportionment shall take effect.

alluded to by the gentleman from Rhode Island, iwo men had a higher number of votes than he But, sir, the history of that act discloses no such || [Mr. SHEFFIELD.) If California is entitled to be had. Now, how many are voted for makes no design on the part of the makers of itasis necessary represented in Congress under the new apportion difference; because, under the plurality rule, the in order to maintain the construction of it adopted ment, every other State is entitled to the same. two having the highest number of votes are entiby the memorialist. Itis an important change. It is There cannot be one set of Representatives here tled to the seats, no matter how many are voted an overturning of allof the precedents. It is adopt- under one apportionment and another set under for. ing a new period from which to count the periods another apportionment; one State represented The next objection is, that the direct tax laid in of apportionment. It has, as I have already said, | under one law and another State under another July at the exira session of Congress, which the been uniform: the 3d of March, 1793; the 3d of law. Now, I say, if California is entitled to be Constitution requires shall be apportioned accordMarch, 1803; the 3d of March, 1813; the 31 of represented here under this new apportionment, ing to numbers, has been apportioned among the March, 1823; the 3d of March, 1833; the 3d of then all other States are entitled to the same rule States so as to give to California what she would March, 1843; and on the 34 of March, 1853, all of representation. Illinois will be entitled to fiveli be obliged to pay if entitled to three members of ending and all commencing on that day. Then new members; Iowa to four; Minnesota to three; Congress. And he claims that California, being suppose that it was the design of the makers of and so on. There is no way in the world to pre. compelled to pay the tax according to the ratio of that statute applying the statute they were mak vent Illinois from coming here next week with three Representatives, therefore she is entitled to ing, so far as the census of 1850 was concerned, five new members, claiming their admission here, three Representatives here. His claim is, in other according to the precedents established theretofore, if we admit the memorialist upon the claim he words, that in passing the tax act, Congress denamely, that that apportionment was to commence sets up.

termined that she should have three Representaon the 3d day of March, 1853; and suppose that But that is not all. The number of members tives; but then they apportioned the tax among as to the next one they were designing to have it in the House is fixed by law, and the number to the other States in the same way, and that deapplied to the 3d of March, 1861: we should ex which each State is entitled is also fixed by law; termines that Illinois shall have five new members, pect to find some trace of it during the discussion, and if you admit five new members from Illi and Ohio two less; in other words, if that is the some reason in the report, some indication of that nois, you must make room for them by crowding effect of it, it creates the confusion in the present peculiar feature; for the bill encountered much ob out five members from other States. Ohio, then, House which I have just alluded to. But the tax jection, and its friends urged it upon every ground. has two too many; Pennsylvania has two too is an annual tax, and after this year it will come

The construction put upon the statute by the many; New York has two too many, and my right according to the apportionment. It may be memorialist requires that between the 1st of No- unfortunate State has one too many. Ohio has that in levying the direct tax there ought to have vember, 1860, and the 3d of March, 1861, it was twenty-one members here, according to the old been that distinction for this year; but the mistake necessary for all these returns to be brought in rule. Which two of the twenty-one are going to made in levying that tax cannot be corrected by to the Secretary of the Interior, else he could not retire. No particular two of the twenty-one are making another mistake. One mistake will not make that apportionment; it was necessary for less elected than the other nineteen of iheir col cure another mistake. the Census Bureau to so far have completed its leagues. The same is true of Pennsylvania, and He further claims that, even if the new apporwork as to enable them to ascertain the entire the same is true of New York. Ohio, according tionment does not apply to this Congress, yet, in aggregate of the population of the country, be to this claim, has elected twenty-one members, equity and in right California is entitled to three cause upon that the apportionment depended. It when she is entitled to only nineteen. She has Representatives in this Congress. I wish, how. was necessary also for the Secretary of the In not indicated which two of the twenty-one she ever, before I speak upon that point, to call acterior to have made within that time the appor will discard. Therefore the whole twenty-one tention to the leiter of the Secretary of the Interior tionment according to the rule prescribed, and it must take up their hats and walk outofthis House, to the committee, from which it appears that he was necessary also for him within that period to and Ohio must select nineteen of them, or nine took it for granted that the new apportionment ap

THE OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF CONGRESS, PUBLISHED BY JOHN C. RIVES, WASHINGTON, D. C.

THIRTY-SEVENTA CONGRESS, 20 Session.

THURSDAY, MAY 8, 1862.

New SERIES.....No. 124.

plied not to this Congress, but to the next. In rect it, and it is further claimed that it can be cor for the third candidates was but slightly inferior ihat letter, dated April 3, 1862, says:

rected for the balance of this decade by a special to the vote cast for the others. It shows that the "It is perhaps unnecessary to state that the apportion act of Congress. It was no part of the duty of the people of California came to the almost unaniment, according to the eighth census, relates to the mem Committee of Elections to present a bill like that. mous conclusion, particularly after the direct taxes bers composing the Thirty-Eighth Congress."

I have stated it because I have designed to state all were assessed upon them under the census of 1860, California had fair notice of this before she the facts of the case on both sides. I think it is true, | that the State was entitled to representation under elected her three members. When the Secretary || in point of fact, that California did not get quite the same census. The provision of the Constituof the Interior notified her Governor that under her full share in the enumeration of 1850,

and that tion is, that representatives and direct taxes shall the new apportionment she would be entitled to there is reason to believe that no more than jus- || be apportioned among the several States that may three members, he took care, as will be seen by | tice would be done to California if a further cor be included within the Union according to their his certificate, to notify them that it was for the rection of this error were proper and competent | respective numbers, which is to be determined by Thirty-Eighth Congress. Here is his certificate: at this limc. Congress, in passing the law of 1852, | adding to the whole number of free persons, inDEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Washington.

by which they gave an additional Representative | cluding those bound to service for a term of years, 1, Caleb B. Smith, Secretary of the Interior, do hereby

to California, recited these defects; and it may be and excluding Indians not taxed, three filihs of certify that, in the discharge of the duty devolved on me that a bill providing for a further correction would all other persons. The Constitution also provides by the provisions of an act of Congress approved May 23, be a proper act. That, however, was no part of that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid, 1850, entitled “ An act providing for the taking of the

the duty of the Committee of Elections. It is except in proportion to the census or enumeration seventh and subsequent censuses of the United States, and to fix the number of the members of the House of Repre- enough for them to show that this gentleman, how- || provided io be taken. sentatives and provide for their future apportionment anong ever worthy, however high-minded he may be, Then, sir, when Congress had proceeded to levy the several States," I have apportioned the Representatives whatever honor he would reflect upon California direct taxes on the State of California under the for the Thirty-Eighth Congress among the several States as provided for by said act, in the manner directed by the

by representing her here, and however gladly we census of 1860, and under that provision of the twenty-finn section thereof.

mighi welcome him here, has no claim to the seat Constitution, is it reasonable thai we should have And I do liereby further certify that the State of Califor under the statute. It is a claim which involves || longer entertained a doubt as to our right of repnia is entitled to three (3) members in the House of Repre

the disorganization of the House. We cannot resentation under the same census? sentatives for the Thirty-Eighth Congress, and until another apportionment shall be made according to law.

with consistency admit Representatives from one I will not stop now to discuss the point as to in testimony whereof, I have bereunto subscribed my State under the new apportionment, and when, the right of Congress to determine that the census

name and caused the seal of the Department of next week, with this decision on the record, other shall take effect for purposes of taxation in 1861, (SEAL) the Interior to be affixed, this 9th day of July, in States entitled to an additional number of Repre- || and for purposes of representation in 1863. I the year of our Lord 1861. CALEB B. SMITH.

sentatives under the new apportionment avail think there is not a lawyer on this floor who will His Excellency LELAND STANFORD,

themselves of that right, and come here to the door not agree with me that it was the intention of the Governor of the State of California. with additional Representatives, turn round and framers of that document that taxation and repOf course the opinion of the Secretary of the say that they shall not be admitted. Consistency resentation should be apportioned among the difInterior did not change the rights of California, forbids that we should do that, and therefore it is ferent States under the same census, and accordor divest her of any rights; but she had before that the Committee of Elections have reported ing to their respective numbers. It cannot be hand the construction of the statute from the Sec a resolution that, under the present apportion. || claimed that we have a right to tax the people of retury of the Interior, and fair notice of the con ment, upon which the Thirty-Seventh Congress is a State under a census two years before we allow struction put upon the law by the officer of the based, California is not entitled to more than two representation under it. If we have this right at Government to whom the duty of apportionment Representatives, and that this gentleman having all, we may refuse representation for ten or twenty was confided, so that they were not deceived in the third highest number of votes is not entitled years just as well as for two. Perhaps, we do this matter; but they went to work and elected to a seat.

not take into consideration all the inconveniences three members, running the chance in the face of Mr. PHELPS, of California. Mr. Speaker, I || that would arise in consequence of claiming a this notice.

do not propose to argue this case at any length, third member, and changing the rule which it is I wish now to call attention to another fact, and for I believe that the matter may be reached in alleged here this morning by the gentleman from then I have done. As I have already said, Cali such a way that no bad precedent will be set; and Massachusetts (Mr. Dawes] has heretofore exfornia claims that even if this apportionment does that after a very brief statement every member of || isted. That gentleman finds that it has been the not apply to this Congress, still she is entitled in the House will be willing to accord us a third rule of Congress to apportion representation the equity to three members, and that claim is based Representative. I will simply state some of the third year after the taking of the census. That upon this ground: they say that if a true and circumstances under which this election took is true up to 1850. It has been the custom of Conaccurate enameration of the inhabitants of Cali- | place. The election for Representatives in the gress itself to apportion new representation under fornia had been made in 1850, they would have State of California was held in September last. each census the third year after it is taken, up to been entitled then to three Representatives. It In the early part of the summer the State conven the passage of the act of 1850, which requires the never could be ascertained from the census of 1850 tions of the different parties met, and made their Secretary of the Interior to make the apportionhow many inhabitants there actually were in Cali nominations. Very shortly afterwards, about the ment. The act of 1790, providing for taking the fornia. The whole matter was before Congress 1st of July, we were notified by the Department census, required the enumeration to commence on in 1852, when a report was made upon the subject;

of the Interior that California was entitled to three the first Monday in August, 1790, and to be comand from that report, and from evidence before the Representatives under the census of 1860. It is pleted within nine months thereafter; and that by Committee of Elections at this session, it appears truc, as the gentleman from Massachusetts has the 1st of September, 1791, the aggregates should be that a portion of the census returns for the State said, the Secretary of the Interior undertook to returned to the President, who laid it before Conof California were burned up in the great fire at say when we should be entitled to this increased gress; and Congress, by the act of April 12, 1792, San Francisco in that year, and never reached number. Buton examination of the law we found declared the whole number of Representatives, Washington at all. It also appeared that whole that the Secretary had no authority for assign and apportioned them among the different States. settlements in California were omitted from the ling the increased number to the Thirty-Eighth, This practice prevailed till 1850. Congress, in each enumeration altogether, from a mistake a's to the || Thirty-Seventh, or any other Congress. The law instance, making the apportionment itself, and State line, supposing they fell within the Territory | made it his duty simply to divide ihe whole pop nearly two years after taking the census. Conof Oregon. It also appeared that there were ham-ulation of the United States by a given number, sequently the enumeration was never completed lets and settlements scattered through the mount and to notify the Executives of the different States for representative purposes till two years after it ains, in the ravines and fastnesses, so that the of the number of Representatives to which they was ordered to be taken. It was not completed marshal states that it was almost impossible to get were entitled to by this subdivision of the whole until Congress had finally acted on it; and, of an accurate enumeration of the population. Upon representative population by the number of Rep course, no claim could possibly accrue to any State the evidence submitted to the committee of Con resentatives fixed by law. After a full examina in consequence of that census until that census gress in 1852, it was estimated thrat the enumera tion by the best lawyers of the State of Califor was completed. tion, as it appeared from the returns in the Census nia of the whole subject-matter, the conclusion But in 1850 Congress decided to change that Bureau, fell short from thirty to fifty per cent. of was arrived at that California was entitled to her rule, and provided that the enumeration should the actual population. Some election returns increased representation then. A third candidate commence early in the summer of 1850, and every since, which are set forth in the report of the Com was placed in the field by the two parties opposed ten years thereafter, and that it should be committee of Elections, corroborate that statement. to us, and finally Mr. Lowe was put in nomina pleted and laid before the Secretary of the Interior Congress, in 1852, undertook to correct this error, tion as a third candidate, by the Administration by the 1st of November following. It was made and, reciting these facts, by a special act, gave to party. The election was held by general ballot, the duty of the Secretary of the Interior to divide California an additional Representative, making each of the three parties running three candidates the whole representative population by the numher number two.

in the State at large, the State never having been ber two hundred and thirty-three, and make the Now, California says—and this is what I wish districted.

apportionment accordingly among the different to ask the attention of the House to-that, as a If there had been any doubt as to the right of States, and immediately notify the Executives matter of equity and fairness, if full justice had California to this increased representation, that thereof of the number of Representatives to which been done to California then, she would have been doubt was entirely dispelled when Congress pro the State was respectively entitled. Therefore apportioned three Representatives instead of two. ceeded to assess the direct laxes on her under the the House will see that whereas, up to 1850, it Congress felt it right then to correct the mistake; census of 1860. That we no longer had any doubt required two years to complete the census, the but it is claimed now that they did not fully cor about the right the vote will show, as that cast aci of 1850 contemplated that the whole census

« PreviousContinue »