EMISSARIES OF JEFF. DAVIS.
Mr. BROWN offered the following.
WHEREAS, It has been charged upon the floor of this House, "that an emissary of Jeff. Davis (meaning Jefferson Davis, President of the Southern Confederacy) was in consultation with members of this House on a certain night," therefore, be it
Resolved, That a select committee of three be appointed by the Speaker of this House to ascertain and report to this House as soon as practicable, whether any members of this House have been in consultation with any such emissary, and if they have been, who such members are, when and where they had such consultation, and for what purpose they had the same.
Resolved, That said committee be empowered to send for witnesses, compel attendance, and examine said witnesses upon oat in reference to the matters set forth in the foregoing preamble and resolutions.
Mr. BROWN said if any member had been in consultation with any Southern traitor for treasonable purposes, he was for expelling him. It had been charged that such a fact by a responsible member on this floor. If there was a traitor here, he (Mr. Brown) was for expelling him from this honorable body. He for one, and neither would any other Democrat, tolerate any communication with traits.
Mr. CASON moved to table the resolutions. The House had heard enough on this subject.
Mr. BROWN and Mr. MILLER demanded the yeas and nays on the motion.
Mr. BRANHAM asked to be excused from voting.
The House refused consent.
Mr. Branham. "Then I will excuse myself." (Putting on his hate and walking into the lobby )
Some further discussion was had, in which Messrs. TARKINGTON, BROWN, MILROY and NIBLACK participated when--
The SPEAKER decided upon putting the vote again to excuse the gentleman from Jefferson (Mr. Branham) from voting and he was excused.
The motion to lay the resolution on the table was rejected by yeas 27, nays 58.
Mr. PACKARD thought that a most important matter was charges of disloyalty against members on this floor. They had been made. The majority on this floor should show to the contrary that these charges exist only in the imagination of the gentlemen who had made them. He courted investigation. He demanded it. If there was a traitor he would be the first man to vote for his expulsion, and would labor to bring him to consign punishment thereafter. This charge came from the Abolitionists only.
Mr. GREGORY hurled back the imputation of being an abolitionist. He knew great excitement existed. He hoped gentleman on both sides would cease reference to exciting topics. He did hope and trust that gentlemen would defer all such matters, and go to work on practical legislation. It was all important that this should be done.
Mr. ATKISON offered an amendment making David C. Branham (the gentleman from Jefferson) a member of the committee, which the understanding that he was also to set as a witness. He did not apprehend that the investigation proposed would cost much. The only witness would probably be David C. Branham.
Mr. NIBLACK attached some degree of importance to the charge made by Mr. Branham yesterday. He (Mr. Branham) was not the sort of man to make charges that he could not sustain. It was a serious thing publicly, in legislative halls, to stigmatize men as traitors. As to the slang party phrases of "Abolitionists," "Copperhead," "Butternut," he cared nothing about them. But the charge of traitor brought by one member on this floor against other members ought to be investigated. The question was, what were we, true and loyal men or not? If we were not, he wanted to know it, and therefore he should vote for the resolution.
page: 124[View Page 124]Mr. ANDERSON referred to the truce of peace declared a few days ago, and to the Democrats having adopted Beauregard's order to call all Union men of the North Abolitionists.
Mr. NIBLACK said his order embraced the Democrats too.
Mr. ANDERSON thought their course indicated that they wished to keep on good terms with him, and compromise with him.
Mr. NIBLACK said, as the charge of wanting to fix op matters with the rebels had been made, he demanded the authority on which it was made.
Mr. ANDERSON referred to several matters which looked like fixing up. He was informed that certain numbers of this House and of the Senate were recently in one of the northern counties of this State, where there was held a convocation of the faithful One gentleman said the objects and the intentions of the Democratic members of the Legislatures of this State and of Illinois was to petition President Lincoln to grant an armistice with the rebels. In case he refused to do this these Western States intended to make peace on their own accent,
VOICES. Who is he?
Mr. ANDERSON. I understand the gentleman represents the counties of Marshall and Starke.
Mr. PACKARD. The report is totally and unqualifiedly false.
Mr. ANDERSON. I understood further that the gentleman regarded President Lincoln and Governor Morton as despots and tyrants worse that those of Austria.
Mr. PACKARD. That's so.
Mr. ANDERSON. Also, that so far as the Executive of this State was concerned, they intended to shear him of his power by the appointment of a Military Board who, would take the military power cut of his hands.
Mr. PACKARD. That is nearly correct.
Mr. ANDERSON took such a wide range in his remarks that he was called to order from all parts of the House.
The SPEAKER (Mr. Moorman in the Chair) said the gentleman was certainly taking a great deal of latitude. He hoped he would confine himself to the question.
Mr. ANDERSON. I was simply answering the question put to me by the gentleman from Knox (Mr. Niblack.)
Mr. NIBLACK, The gentleman stated that there were gentlemen on this floor who sought to compromise with rebels. I asked him for his authority--his proof.
Mr. ANDERSON. Do you suppose if a man was in connection with rebels--if he knew anything to the schemes of traitors in the North, he would tell you anything about it?
Mr. BROWN. Suppose David C. Branham is summoned before the Investigating Committee and he is questioned with regard to what he had paid in this House on yesterday, don't you suppose he would answer? Of course he would.
Mr. ANDERSON returned to the question of an armistice. Although the gentleman of the majority had disclaimed responsibility for the resolutions offered and speeches made on this floor by gentlemen who have been regarded as leaders of the party, they have been sustained by their votes. The party are responsible for them. As for an armistice, nothing is more desired by the rebels. It will give them the proper breathing time to recruit for another campaign. How stand the majority of the Democratic party on this question? Gentlemen have been cautious in expressing their views, and in committing themselves by the passage of resolutions. They seem to have been holding lack to obtain an expression from the people, and if they think the people will sustain their: they will declare for an armistice. Speeches made by their party leaders, whom they delight to honor, show it. Judge Perkins has declared in its favor. Your organ in this city favors an armistice.
Mr. NIBLACK. We do not care to know anything about compromise with rebels, but whether any one here had had treasonable communications with traitors.
Mr. ANDERSON referred to the difficulty of getting proof of the disloyalty of members, When a short time ago it was proposed to investigate the question of secret disloyal societies, it was argued by members of the majority that if sworn as witnesses members of such societies would have no hesitation in perjuring themselves. It was just as proper to conclude that if members were disloyal, they would have no higher regard for their oath. The committee might find it very difficult to obtain legal proof. The investigation was as likely to be fruitless in one case as in the other.
Mr. BUSKIRK, (Mr. Moorman in the Chair.) The gentleman from Jefferson made a charge of treason yesterday against some of the members of this House. It was a grave charge, and if true or untrue the country should know the fact. The gentleman should retract the charge or prove it. If he had named the member it would have relieved the 57 or 58 other members of the majority on this floor from its odium. Now, it attaches to the whole majority, and I am not willing to rest under it. Having been in consultation with members of both Houses, he denied that a word had been uttered by any one in favor of taking the State out of the Union. Nor were they in favor of a North-Western Confederacy. The gentlemen from St. Joseph had spoken of an armistice. He gave notice that when the majority were ready to state their opinion on page: 125[View Page 125] they would do it, so as to be understood by the country. We will speak as one man. There will be no diversity. How we will speak it is not proper for me to say. No resolution has been introduced or action taken which will justify any one in saying that we are in favor of an armistice. Unwise and impolitic resolutions have been introduced into the House, but I deny responsibility for them until we adopt them.
Mr. VAN BUSKIRK. I understand the gentleman to say that when the majority spoke out on the subject of an armistice, they would do it as one man, but that he does not know how they will speak. How does he know they will speak as one man?
Mr. BUSKIRK. The votes taken in the House completely answer that. We are a band of brothers. We vote together, act together, think together, and we expect to do it as long as we remain. Even if some of them go for measures I don't endorse. I will go with my party rather than the opposition.
Mr. LEEDS. If you knew your party were going wrong, would you go with them?
Mr. BUSKIRK. If the question was loyalty to my party or the government. I would sustain my country against the party. But I believe I can best support my country inside of the party, and in concert with it. The administration is not the government. We have the right to oppose the policy and principles of the administration, and we do oppose them.
Mr. CASON asked if the Confederacy was recognized would the gentleman consider it the duty of Indiana to stand by the Union?
Mr. BUSKIRK denied the right of secession. If the Confederacy should be recognized it would not absolve Indiana from its allegiance. He regarded the idea of a North Western Confederacy as a myth.
Mr. ANDERSON asked if Mr. Hendricks did not, on the 8th of January, at a Democratic Convention, advocate such a Confederacy?
Mr. BUSKIRK did not understand the matter as the gentleman from St. Joseph did. As he understood the speech, he endorsed H. He considered the tariff laws forced on the Northwest by New England, oppressive and unjust. If the confederacy is recognized he would remain in the Union, and demand of New England the repeal of such laws. If they will not repeal them, then the time will come when we must determine what we will do, rather than submit to be ground into the dust by the New England States.
Mr. NOYES. If the tariff is continued by legal and constitutional means, will the time ever come when you can secede?
Mr. BUSKIRK denied the right of secession. But there is a right of revolution, not according to the Constitution, but independent of all Constitutions, all laws, all governments. If the people of the Northwest corny to the conclusion thai those laws are too unjust and oppressive to be borne they may rebel, and will decide then what to do. He did not believe the traitors of the South had any justifiable cause of secession. He denied that the Democrats favored mob law. But let the minority inaugurate civil war, and we go down in a common ruin.
In conclusion he would simply say to the gentleman from Jefferson (Mr. Branham) that when he made threats of hanging against members on this floor if they voted for a certain measure, he would find the majority ready to defend their rights. That gentleman and those who acted with him should take warning from the lessons of history. When they commence hanging us they had better be looking out for their own necks. If the Republican party inaugurated civil war--and the first act must come from them--on the very first motion there would be such a gathering of the clans throughout the State as the world never saw before. And he honestly believed, if the course pursued by the republicans was persisted in, civil war would come. They stigmatized Democrats as traitors--they talk about Democrats taking the Arsenal--they talk about Democrats encouraging desertions--about their desiring to take the State out of thu Union--and threaten to bring the military into this hall! By the charges of those in the interest of the administration, a strong belief was entertained by the people throughout the State that they proposed to drive the Democrats to some act of violence. But as he had said, the overt act must come from the republicans. The majority were cool, calm, not intimidated, and determined to maintain their rights.
Mr. BRANHAM stated that he was satisfied he could convince the committee that he had good ground for what he had stated. He repeated the history of what he had said at Columbus and on yesterday. He had threatened no one. He had always said he would allow the majority to pass any legal or constitutional measure, but would resist any act of secession at all hazards.
Mr. BROWN asked if he said that an emissary of Jeff. Davis was here in consultation with members.
Mr. BRANHAM. He had said a gentleman from the south came here, with the resolutions favoring an armistice, and consul ted with members, avowing that the object was to cripple the government. The resolutions were introduced at his instance. He intended their effect should be to compel the government to declare an armistice.
page: 126[View Page 126]Mr. BROWN followed in support of his resolution. He wanted to give the honorable gentleman from Jefferson, (Mr. Branham,) a chance of ventilating his skirts with regard to the charges he had made against Democrats. If he was mistaken, as he would find himself upon investigation, he (Mr. Brown) should expect of him to come in here and make the suitable and necessary retraction and apology.
Mr. CASON objected to the committee. 1. Because he doubted the power of the House to hold a member to account for his speeches. 2. No specific charge had been made. 3. It was proposed to raise a committee to investigate where they were directly interested in the result.
The amendment (Mr. Atkison's) was rejected.
The resolution was then adopted by yeas 58, nays 25.
