APPENDIX TO THE BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
TWELFTH VOLUME.
The Wabash and Erie Canal--The Burson and Kline Contested Election Case--Debate in Continuation.
IN SENATE.
WEDNESDAY, January 18, 1871.[IN CONTINUATION FROM THE BOTTOM OF FIRST COLUMN PAGE 107.]
Mr. CAVEN. Mr. President: I do not propose to enter into a general discussion of the merits of the proposition before the Senate for I think it has been well and fairly discussed at least I have said all I desire to upon it. But inasmuch as the status of the question has been changed it might be proper to discuss this division and explain wherein the proposed Constitutional amendment [see pages 27 and 28] has merits greater than the substitute just proposed by the Senator from Jackson [Mr. Brown see page 107.]
The difference in the main between the Senator from Jackson and myself is that I provide for an act of legislation to be passed upon by this General Assembly, looking to the redemption of these certificates and the purchase of the canal but it shall not be approved until submitted to a vote of the qualified voters of the State. I am prepared to believe there never would a contingency arise when the State would take back the canal by the payment of the present outstanding canal certificates amounting to eighteen million or odd; but the holders of certificates might be willing to transfer the the canal for some certain sum which might be agreed upon between usone hundred thousand dollars fifty thousand dollars, or any smaller or greater sum the State might be willing to say.
It might not be desirable to have our public works held by foreign bondholders, but if the amendment proposed by the Senator from Jackson were adopted we never could purchase that canal if it were offered, for no difference how triffling a sum. I simply propose by my amendment to retain that option; and I propose simply to define how that option shall be exercised--not to abandon it. I propose to guard against legislative corruption--to guard against this question being sprung upon the people suddenly. If a proposition should come before us for the purchase of this canal which the people upon a vote should say was desirable I would prefer not to cut off an opportunity to accept it. The amendment proposed by myself would cost no more to the people than the other, and it preserves to the people a right that may be desirable in a contingency that may arise, and if the contingency should never arise it never can possibly do a harm that the substitute would not, while it might be a benefit to the State.
In dealing with the future we are always dealing with a great uncertainty, and the history of this canal is an example of that. When the transfer of this canal was made to the Trustees for the benefit of the bondholders what great expectancies were entertained and they were almost a total failure. From the history of the canal it would seem that it would not be desirable to purchase it, but as we can retain this option without disadvantage, it seems to me desirable to do so. Then if we ever desire to purchase it, it would be in our option to do so, and if not desirable, of course we never will make the purchase.
Mr. BROWN. I desire simply to say a word in reference to this amendment and only a word. By the introduction of this substitute I do not desire to be considered as having changed my opinion that there is already a sufficient prohibition in the Constitution against the General Assembly taking back the Wabash and Erie Canal, or rather assuming a debt for the purpose of paying the outstanding canal bonds, because I am yet of the opinion page: 434[View Page 434] that the Constitution expressly prohibits the Legislature from doing such a thing. But if at the same time there should happen to be a half million or a million in the State who desire it, I think there is nothing in the Constitution that would prohibit the General Assembly from appropriating monies on hand to the payment of these canal bonds, should the General Assembly desire to do so; and therefore there is no impropriety in adopting a Constitutional amendment containing a prohibition in the language I have submitted to the Senate.
I do not think, Mr. President, there is much danger that the General Assembly of the State ever would appropriate money; or, if there was no Constitutional prohibition, that it ever would take back the Wabash and Erie Canal; but inasmuch as the subject has been brought to considerable public notice, and inasmuch as parties who are interested in canal stocks are continually importuning the Legislature of the State, I see no impropriety in the General Assembly, settling the question at once in order that the General Assembly as well the people, may be put at rest upon this subject. That is the reason why I have offered this amendment, and I desire it shall be adopted.
Now the Senator from Marion [Mr. Caven] says if my amendment is adopted that relieves the State of any right the State may have to redeem the Wabash and Erie Canal. I concede that to be true. That is one of the objects I had in view when I offered the amendment. I hope the State will relinquish any right she may now have to redeem the Wabash and Erie Canal and get that question out of the way: because the fact that the State has the right to redeem the canal is dwelt upon by some who desire the State shall redeem it as a reason why she should.
Now in 1846-7 when these parties took the Canal they were anxious to get it, and the right of the State to redeem the Canal was only incorporated to please some gentlemen who had not then fully made up their minds that the Internal Improvement system was a failure. They still hoped some good might come out of it, and if any good did come out of it, inasmuch as the State was the primary mover, they thought the State should have any benefit the State could obtain by redemption in 20 years. That twenty years have expired, and it is now for the State to say whether she will or will not redeem it, and I think the Senator over the way will agree in saying it is utterly out of the question because she cannot redeem it unless she pays off the bonds, the payment of which are charged upon the canal. And with the interest continually accruing it is fair to presume no General Assembly ever would be as reckless to the people as to assume the payment of their bonds for the privilege exercising the right of redemption by the State; and why not settle this question at once.
The only difference between the amendment proposed by the Senator from Marion [Mr. Caven] and mine, as he has very well stated in the prohibition against the right or power of the Legislature to take back the Wabash and Erie Canal or provide for the payment of the canal bonds without refering the question to the people at all; while his proposes that the Legislature may pass a law providing for the redemption of the canal, and the payment of the stocks charged upon the canal, but the law shall not go into effect until ratified at the polls.
Well, Mr. President, that in my judgment, is a very singular way of putting legislative acts into effect. Our Constitution provides against laws being put into effect and operation in that way, and a decision in the fourth Indiana declares that a law depending for its binding force and effect upon a vote of the people is no law at all. Of course if this Constitutional amendment is adopted it obviates the present Constitutional provision on that subject I concede; but this amendment of his, if adopted, is an innovation in part upon the Constitutional provision which says that all laws shall go into effect upon the authority of the General Assembly, but not otherwise, and I think that is a safe Constitutional provision and one that should be adhered to. We never would have laws absolute upon their face, and effective, if our Constitution provided they might be first submitted to a vote of the people. The Legislature is the people of the State of Indiana in the enactment of laws. The General Assembly is presumed to pass no law the people do not desire should be passed, and certainly there is no sound reason, and surely no necessity why the Legislative will, before it shall become operative and effective should be submitted to the people.
Another reason why I think the amendment should be absolute is this: we have had enough of this question. It has already produced vexation enough. It has already been used by unscrupulous politicians on both sides. On this question I desire to rise above party. It has already furnished aid and comfort to some men who desire this injustice shall be done to Indiana, and why not at once settle this question, and forever, as far as it is in the power of the State to settle it.
If the learned Senator over way is correct when he says that unless the Legislature settle this question at once, it is open to parties to make improper advances to it; while his resolution, if adopted and made part of the Constitution of Indiana, simply throws a shield around the General Assembly to some extent, from these improper advances; and gives these gentlemen an opportunity of coming with their fifteen or eighteen million of dollars, if they desire to spend all of it, or such portion as they desire, and put it in the General election page: 435[View Page 435] of the State of Indiana and use it for the purpose of corrupting the ballot box by improperly influencing the voter at the polls--for the purpose of interfering with elections. I do not desire to be understood as saying the people of Indiana would be corrupted by the improper effort, but surely the Senator cannot dispute me successfully, when I say his amendment, while it does not save the General Assembly from the dire calamity he spoke of, it involves the people of Indiana in the same effort, if it is to be made upon the General Assembly; in other words, holders of the canal script would first come to the General Assembly and employ means to induce the General Assembly to pass a law submitting the question to the people and then go to the people and attempt to employ means by which they could pursuade the people to ratify the act of the General Assembly. My amendment saves us and the people from being subjected to such indecent proposals:--it says stand by the contract made in 1846-7.
I have now said more than I intended to and more than I desired to say. This amendment is not a new one. I desire to make no innovation upon the gentleman who first proposed the amendment. It is the same amendment proposed by Senator Wolcott two years ago [See page 292 BREVIER REPORTS volume X] and I believe it passed the Senate, but I may be mistaken about that. So I will say gentlemen over the way cannot charge me with any desire of appropriating any benefit in this to the political party I have the pleasure to affiliate with. I have no party in it. It is a question that should rise above party in my judgment, and I say blistered be the politician that for the sake of his country would not rise above partyism and stand upon the ground that his judgment and honesty tells him is for the interest of the people of Indiana upon this subject.
Mr. GRAY then demanded the previous question--see top of second column page 107.
THE BURSON CASE.
When Mr. ELLIOTT offered the following resolution: [see page 108] Resolved, That the Committee to whom was referred the credentials of the Hon. John W. Burson be and are hereby requested to report at once,
Mr. HUGHES said: If the object of the resolution is to make this committee report on the charge of bribery when they have got subpoenas out for witnesses, it is rather a novel proceeding; and to use a favorite expression with gentlemen on the other side rather revolutionary. I only want to say distinctly that the record will show that every Senator who votes for that resolution as now worded, votes to suppress an investigation into grave charges of bribery.
Mr. GLESSNER. Mr. President: It seems to me that resolution is out of order. There was objection to the introduction of the resolution--resolutions are not now in order, and we certainly cannot proceed to vote upon it over objections. There were two or three objections made in this part of the House.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. The Chair did not hear them. The resolution is clearly before the Senate.
Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. President: The committee to which this matter was referred have it under consideration and have arranged to go into the investigation of it tonight. The matter would have been investigated before this time but Mr. Burson came to the committee last week and desired it should not be taken up until his attorneys should get here. I would have called the committee together for the investigation of it immediately, had it not been postponed at his suggestion. We are ready to go into the investigation of the whole case; we have witnesses subpoened; they will be here to-night, and we will be ready to report, perhaps in a day or two, on the whole case.
On the motion of Mr. JOHNSTON, the resolution was laid on the table--yeas 24, nays 23--as follows:
YEAS--Messrs. Armstrong, Beggs, Bobo, Bradley, Brown, Carnahan, Cave, Denbo, Dittemore, Daugherty, Fracisco, Fuller, Glessner, Gregg, Henderson, Hughes, Johnston, Keigwin, Lasselle, Morgan, Rosebrugh, Sarinhausen, Stroud and Williams--24.
NAYS--Messrs. Andrews, Beardsley, Beeson, Caven, Collett, Dwiggins, Elliott, Fosdick, Gray, Green, Hadley, Hamilton, Hess, Hooper, Hubbard, Martindale, Miller, Robinson, Scott, Steele, Taylor, Wadge and Wood--23.
Mr. GLESSNER moved to amend rule 17--see top of page 108.
Mr. GRAY. I move to indefinitely postpone the amendment. I think I fully understand what is meant by this proposed amendment to the rule of this Senate. The amend- is so worded--and is done purposely I have no doubt--to exclude the Senator from Delaware from voting.
Mr. HUGHES. Who is the Senator from Delaware?
Mr. GRAY. The Hon. John W. Burson, is as much a Senator as any Senator upon this floor. Now I desire to state Mr. President, and I want to be most emphatically and distinctly understood,--and I desire the Reporter to take my remarks down--that the Republican Senators upon this floor have no objection whatever to a full, fair and sweeping investigation of the charges that are made against the Senator from Delaware. But we take the position that he is a Senator, entitled to all the rights, privileges and immunities of every other Senator upon this floor, that the depriving him of his vote is not only an outrage upon him, but an outrage upon every page: 436[View Page 436] man who respects his rights as a Senator upon this floor: and that it is in violation of law and of all precedence and all parliamentary law, as I shall clearly show by reading from Cushing's Parliamentary Law.
I say Cushing's Legislative Law, as I will read presently, shows clearly that the Senator from Delaware is a Senator; and I say it is authority that is respected in every Legislative assembly in this nation, as much so as Webster's Dictionary is respected as proper authority for the true interpretation of the English language. The attempt to prevent the Senator from Delaware, from taking any part in the proceedings of this Senate, I repeat, is in utter violation of that law, and Senators who are keeping him out are trampling that law under foot and setting it at defiance. I suppose Senators will say the Senate has the right to do anything it pleases, but I undertake to say, and I have the law at my back in saying it, that when a Senator is once a Senator there is no way to get clear of him except to expel him. [Mr. G. reads: "The right to assume the functions of a Senator" &c.]
Here is the Hon. John W. Burson, the Senator elect from the counties of Delaware and Madison who comes to the bar of this Senate, being duly returned, reported by the Board of Canvassers as duly elected, with the certificate of the Court and its broad seal upon it, and is sworn by a Judge of the Supreme Court, yet he is excluded from his rights as a Senator upon this floor. Why? Because some man has sworn that he has obtained that election by fraud. Is the Senate to prejudge the case? Is he not presumed to be innocent of the charge until proven guilty? Then why debar him of his rights until his case is investigated? Is there any right in it? Is it just? Is there any law or any precedents to establish it?
Gentlemen talk about precedents; there is no precedent, Mr. President. They may talk about what has been done in Congress but there is no parallel to the case of the Hon. Senator from Delaware in Congress. Entirely different questions arose in Congress.
Now, Mr. President, I undertake to speak for myself, and to point out clearly what course I intend to pursue, and Senators may distinctly understand it now. I repeat again, and want it distinctly understood, that we are willing the case should be fully, fairly and sweepingly investigated, and if the Senator is proven guilty of the charges, I say put him out. As far as I am concerned, if I am backed by those who think he is a Senator, we intend to resist every day, and every hour of the day, and every day of the session until the last day, and the last hour of the last day, until what is right is done in regard to the case of the Senator from Delaware.
Mr. HUGHES. It is hardly worth while to take up time in the discussion of this case. The credentials of Mr. Burson are in the hands of the committee. An attempt has just been made to take them out of the hands of the committee and the Senate has refused to do so. The case of Mr. Burson is not in any sense before the Senate upon the question under consideration. The Senate has just laid on the table the proposition to call back Mr. Burson's case. Now we are on the subject of rules and there is a proposition here to forbid any Senator voting upon a question in which he is interested and where the record shows he is interested. If the gentleman will look in the same book he quotes from, he will find it is parliamentary law, that in no case can a Senator or Representative vote in cases in which he is interested, and that is the question before the Senate now. The proposition of the Senator from Shelby [Mr. Glessner] is to narrow that rule down to cases where the record shows a senator to be interested. That is the question before the Senate. I am not in favor of a man's voting where interested whether the record shows he is interested or not. I ask the Senator from Randolph [Mr. Gray] if he is in favor of a man's voting where interested?--whether he is in favor of a man's being the judge in his own case?
Mr. GRAY. No, sir, I am not; but I want the Senator to understand that we consider the Senator from Delaware a Senator upon this floor, and we are demanding his vote, and I think the amendment is intended so that whenever we raise that question the record will show he is interested and therefore it will prevent him from voting.
Mr. HUGHES. The record shows that the so-called Senator from Delaware did vote twice on his own case; now I put the question to the Senator from Randolph, if he had been in his place would he have voted on his own case?
Mr. GRAY, I will answer. I suppose I would be controlled very much by circumstances surrounding me at the time. If I had been placed as Mr. Burson was, taking into consideration the outrage attempted to be made upon him, I think perhaps I would; in any other case I think I would not. Now, if the Senator from Delaware will be recognized as a Senator upon this floor, clothed with the immunities and privileges of a Senator, I am willing a rule may be adopted that would exclude him from voting on his own case--on the report of the Committee.
Mr. HUGHES. If you are willing to do that why are you not willing to do it now?
Mr. GRAY. Because you are not willing to admit him to the rights of a Senator.
Mr. HUGHES. That is not the question, Mr. President. The Senator says he is willing to vote for this rule. Is he willing now? That is the question. It won't do to say that he is willing though not ready. Is he will- page: 437[View Page 437] ing to exclude him from voting now and hereafter?
Mr. GRAY. We have no right to debar him from voting.
Mr. HUGHES. We propose to establish a rule that no man shall vote in his own case, where the record shows him to be interested, and the Senator from Randolph objects to the rule, admitting it to be sound, because he has got a case in court he wants to try before the law goes into operation. That is what is the matter with him. The Senator from Randolph cannot legislate upon general principles, which he himself admits to be sound, he can't go for a rule that has been parliamentary law in every country where the English language is known for many years, until after he gets rid of the Senator frem Delaware call him that by courtesy. Here is a rule of the House of Representatives of the United States. [Mr. H. reads: "No member shall vote," &c.]
Now, sir, this is a good rule that the Senator from Shelby [Mr. Glessner] has introduced, but it does not go far enough. The rule I offered was the rule I read, but to compromise matters and save time I accepted the amendment, and up gets the Senator from Randolph and says: "Hold on, that is a very good rule, but it is going to hurt Mr. Burson;--the object is to exclude Mr. Burson." Alter we have had occular demonstration that Mr. Burson is a man ready and willing to judge of his own case and vote on it, which he has twice done, the argument is against the Senator. Does he want that repeated here?
The question is whether each man in this chamber is to decide for himself whether there is a case against him. We have had Mr. Burson here twice voting on a call of the yeas and nays, and voting in favor of his own right to take a seat. We have had that exhibition here, and I undertake to say you may look into the law books and into the history of the civilized world and no other case can be found where a man claiming a seat in a legislative body ever presumed to vote upon the question himself.
Talk about precedents; a precedent has been made here which has no parallel in history. You may search the world over and John W. Burson is the only man, known to the civilized world that ever voted twice upon the call of the yeas nays in favor of his own right to take a seat in a legislative body. And the false and infamous statement has been sent throughout this country that he was excluded by an arbitrary act of the majority, in order to organize this body, when the record shows that even counting his own vote the body could have been organized regardless of it. This is all there is of "the senatoral outrage'' as it is called throughout the country; and a member of Congress gets up in the United States House of Representatives and states in his place that this Senate was organized by fraud! Why sir, the vote of Mr. Burson had no more to do with the question of organizing this Senate than the vote of any banker or merchant in this city. He did vote and yet the Senate was organized; he could vote now, sir, but it would not destroy the organization of the body. There is an attempt being made to manufacture capital in this matter throughout this country by the suppression of truth and the suggestion of falsehood.
The committee stand ready, and so advise the Senate to proceed to the investigation of the case, and let not Senators lay the flattering unction to their souls that they are manufacturing any great amount of capital outside or inside of this chamber by invoking constitutional rights for a man claiming a seat as a Senator here, when a grave charge of bribery stands unanswered and unrefuted against him. The Constitution says, a man who resorts to bribery to secure his seat is ineligible; and in his case such charges are made, a committee of investigation has been organized, subpoenas for witnesses have gone out, the committee is ready to hear the parties and give an immediate decision, and here we have this morning a resolution to suppress that whole investigation--to take from the committee jurisdiction of the whole subject--to close the avenues of justice and to close the mouths of witnesses upon this grave charge of bribery which goes directly to the ballot box and the rights of the people.
They say, so the Senator from Randolph says, (and I must consider, in view of the greatness with which he is regarded by the Cincinnati Gazette, that he is the chosen leader of this movement,) that we are to hear of this case at every step of legislation of the session. Here, on the 18th day of January, with only a short season to spend in taking care of the interests of the State, he advises us in open Senate this morning that at every step in the legislation of the present session we are to have this question thrust upon us to the distraction of public business. That is the notice served upon us.
Do these gentlemen mean to say that a charge of bribery, with a committee organized to examine it, shall not be investigated? Do they mean to say, after three or four decisions of this Senate, they will thrust that question upon us to distract the public business, and thus place themselves in the attitude of seeking to cover up that investigation? They talk about the rights of Senators, what do they think about the rights of the people? They talk about justice, what do they think of corruption? Have they no pride as citizens, as men or as Senators that inspires them to purge this body or any of its members from such a charge? Are we to be interrupted here in this page: 438[View Page 438] way, and a clamor kept up about the technical rights of a Senator when the people are standing outside of these halls demanding an investigation into the charge of bribery and corrupting the ballot box of the State; or are we to have him before a committee waiting to hear him? How much capital is to be made out of that? Not much. If the Senator from Randolph is the rising man the Cincinnati Gazette represents him to be, he will find other subjects more fit, out of which to carve a reputation, and not talk here about technicalities while the people stand outside clamoring for the purity of the ballot box.
Mr. SCOTT. This subject has taken a little different turn from what I anticipated. I don't see but one point in this thing that looks unfavorable, but there is one point that looks unfavorable and unfair, and I submit that to Senators in all candor. There is but one vote between us I believe, if properly counted, and it looks very much as though these Senators were interested in preventing us having our legal and legitimate number of votes. It looks very much so, and it is very hard for a man in his own mind to acquit them entirely of any interest on that question. It is exceedingly hard in my judgment for the people to entirely acquit them of the interest offered in that direction--to deprive us of one vote, or to spike one of our guns. It looks that way to a man at a distance.
The only thing we complain of is not that Senators are endeavoring to establish a rule which I recognize to be of value and one that should be the rule,of this House, and in the use of that rule they do not permit all persons elected, properly elected, to participate in a rule which if adopted will forever deprive us of the strength we are entitled to by the voice of the people of the State. If they had not prevented this Senator from voting, and now seek to get between him and his legitimate votes, a rule which will exclude him from voting hereafter when he does come in, we might not have so much complaint.
Mr. HUGHES. Does the Senator mean to intimate that when the case of Mr. Burson comes up he is to vote in his own case, and that would be the hardship?
Mr. SCOTT. I do not understand that a man elected to a seat on this floor can so discharge himself from responsibility that he can set silent from day to day and see his constituents entirely ignored in this Senate without expressing opposition either by vote or voice. I do not consider that a matter in which he is entirely and particularly interested. It is his constituents, sir, that are interested and he is in duty bound to cast his vote in such cases. If it were a matter of peculiar interest where he was to reap an advantage, every sense of propriety that every man has upon this floor would see and admit that he ought not to vote. But I cannot see any difference in these parliamentary proceedings, in his voting and in any other Senator's voting;--not the least.
Now sir, as far as the question is concerned which was before the Senate this morning- the resolution of the Senator from Fayette [Mr. Elliott] asking that committee to make a report. I understand the purport of that resolution to be simply this: asking the committee to report upon the credentials of Mr. Burson, in order to let this body know whether he is by these credentials properly elected. I don't know what else the resolution meant. I had no knowledge of it, but I understand by it that the committee might report that as far as the credentials are concerned they show that he was properly elected. I don't know what use there is in making a report upon that subject because it has been conceded upon this floor that the credentials are proper and fair upon their face; although there would be no harm or object as I can see in that committee reporting that fact to this body. And I don't conceive or understand that would withdraw from the committee the contest which has been referred to that committee by this House, or prevent that committee from investigating the charges which have been made against the Senator. There is a clear and proper distinction between the election of a man and whether that man is qualified to take his seat after his election.
One Senator stands upon this floor and says we are casting a vote to shield a man who is charged with corruption. I say the votes which have been cast will not bear that construction. When you interpret it in the light of a resolution referring it to a committee and a resolution of the Senate calling for a report from that committee it will show these two things are seperable and can be properly divided.
I don't know of anything else in this matter. I would be perfectly willing to adopt this rule did it not bear so hard in this particular case, and as though it were fixed up for this individual case. I think the Senator from Delaware [Mr. Burson] ought to be allowed to participate in the adoption of the rule--he might vote for it or against it. I do not know which way he would vote nor do I care. But when we attempt the establishment of a new rule and exclude him from voting upon the establishment of that rule which is to affect him in the future, I think it looks hard and may be made the subject of just complaint.
Mr. GRAY. The Senator from Monroe [Mr. Hughes] has erected here a very strict standard of political propriety, in his remarks directed to the Senator from Delaware in regard to his vote upon a proposition in which he was interested. The Senator ought to be interested as to his rights as a Senator upon the floor, and that is all that affects the Senator page: 439[View Page 439] from Delaware [Mr. Burson] as to whether he is a Senator or nor. Upon that proposition I think he has a perfect right if he can, to try to vote. But Mr. President, the Senator seems to be so very sensitive in regard to what I shall call political propriety, I can't help but think of the fact that he himself, was elected to his seat in this body by the Republican party of his county, yet since I have had the honor to be a member of this Legislature I believe he has never acted an hour or a day with that party. If I am correctly informed, the Senator two years ago, went into a Democratic caucus, took his nomination for United States Senator and was voted for in the joint Assembly of the--
Mr. HUGHES (interrupting.) That is not true. I have not been in a Democratic caucus since the war commenced till the other night; I went into one then, and expect to go into all this session, and expect to vote with that party.
Mr. GRAY. All I have to say is if the Senator is to be governed by so fine and sensitive a feeling could he not have carried it out when he concluded to leave the Republican party and lay his commission down before the people of Monroe county?
Mr. HUGHES. That is a question between the people of Monroe county and myself. If the gentleman has read any other paper than the Cincinnati Gazette he will find that the Republican organ of Monroe county endorses what I have done. That county never was a Republican county until I was a candidate and never will be again in my opinion. [Laughter.]
Mr. GRAY. That does not answer the question. I undertake to say he was nominated and elected by Republicans to this Senate.
Mr. HUGHES. I was; and in every speech I made I told the people they need have no fear of negro suffrage, for I had the pledge of honor of the Republican party both State and National, made in Convention, that they would not force it upon them. I found out I unintentionally told a falsehood because they no sooner got into power than they did do it. The gentleman can decide and the public can decide who has been betrayed.
Mr. GRAY. The gentleman does not undertake to say that he represents the Republican party of Monroe county.
Mr. HUGHES. I undertake to say I represent my constituents.
Mr. GRAY. The way is to present himself before a Republican Convention and ask for a nomination.
Mr. HUGHES. The way is to present myself before Republican voters.
Mr. GRAY. Now I do think that would be the proper course for the Senator to pursue. That would be carrying out the doctrine he is attempting to enforce upon the Senator from Delaware. The Senator talks about the people outside of these walls clamoring about this question of Mr. Burson. Of course, if Senator Burson is disqualified, the entire people of his district of both political parties are unrepresented here; and that is what we object to. Just allow the Senator from Delaware to exercise the functions of a member of the body until this matter is investigated, and if the investigation shows that fraud has been committed, turn him out. I ask if that is not the course pursued in the other end of the capitol? Was not Mr. Weakly turned out yesterday? And did he not occupy a seat until the report was made? Why is not the same course pursued here? There is no reason--none in the world. We think it is the intention to keep the seat vacant, and not permit the Senator from Delaware to exercise his functions nor permit his competitor.
Mr. HUGHES. I will state that I know the Senator is incorrect in that. Mr. Burson asked the delay of his investigation for one week, and stopped the investigation there. And I say whatever delay has occurred, has been at the personal request of Mr. Burson in consequence of the absence of his Attorneys. The Senator ought not to charge delay upon the committee.
Mr. BROWN. If the Senator will allow me I desire to say this: Should this Senate make an order upon that committee or should the Democratic party make an order upon that committee that would require me as a member of that committee to unnecessarily postpone the investigation of Mr. Burson's case, I would resign my place upon it. I desire an investigation at the earliest practicable moment, and when any delay shall come from one side of the Chamber or the other, simply for the purpose of preventing Mr. Burson from having a hearing is shown to me, I shall no longer serve upon the committee.
Mr. GRAY. We claim that there is nothing about the credentials of the Senator from Delaware that needs any investigation. We don't ask them to stop the investigation so far as fraud is concerned. Whatever fraud has entered into the election, we have from first to last said we are willing for the fullest investigation.
Mr. LASSELLE, I can have no doubt as to the propriety of this proposed amendment. It is so just and proper that I am at a loss to see how any Senator can hesitate to vote for it. It has been the parliamentary rule for centuries that no member of any legislative body shall be permitted to vote on any question in which he is interested. It has been a rule of ancient parliament, from which we have derived our customs for centuries, that members are not only prohibited from voting on any question in which they are interested but are required to withdraw from the page: 440[View Page 440] deliberations of the body. I will read from Jefferson's Manual, which recites the old parliamentary usage on that question. It will be found in section 13, "orders of debate." [See 2 Hats. 121, 122.]
Mr. GRAY. Does the proposed amendment meet that case? Might not a person be interested and not be referred to in the record?
Mr. LASSELLE. It makes the case stronger. If the record of the body shows it it makes it conclusive. This is not only parliamentary rule for centuries but is the rule of Congress. I will read the rule of Congress--rule 40. [Mr. L. reads.] That rule was adopted April 7, 1779, only a few weeks after the adoption of the Constitution, and has always been the rule since. There can be no question as to the propriety of this rule; and I will say that the rule of the Senate in force now in regard to this matter is a mistake. That has been a rule of this body only for a few years past. I think it was put into the rules of 1865 by a misprint. I called attention to this fact two years ago and insisted that the resolution should be amended but it was thought no Senator would be found who would so far forget his duty to himself and respect for this body as to vote in a matter in which he was interested.
It is claimed that Senators on one side are opposed to the Senator from Delaware voting, simply because if they allowed his vote it will give one vote against us. I hope this is a question above that of a mere vote. It ought to be and I know it is. There is a great principle involved here. I think I can speak for my colleagues here that it is not a question of a vote, but it is a desire to do justice and go back to the old parliamentary rule of centuries.
The Senator from Randolph claims that the Senator, Mr. Burson from Delaware, is a Senator upon this floor. For my part I admit it that he is a Senator of the State of Indiana, and a Senator in this body. I accord that with cheerfulness and without hesitation, but I say that is no reason why he should be entitled to vote in any case in this body. He may be a Senator in form; he is a Senator until he is declared to be unqualified or expelled; but while he may be a Senator he is not entitled to be a Senator with all the privileges of the balance of us who have not been charged with bribery. This is consistent with the precedents and laws of our country. The Senator from Delaware is a citizen; so am I; we are free citizens of Indiana, but, sir, the moment we are charged with an offense against the laws, are we not arrested, are not our liberties for the time suspended, until that charge is cleared up? We are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. I admit the Senator from Delaware is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty, but he is charged with bribery and according to the laws of the country we should suspend him in the liberties and full rights of a Senator until he is cleared of the charge. If cleared admit him as you would a citizen, but if guilty hurl him from the proud position of a Senator as you would hurl any citizen from the proud position of a citizen.
I think I speak candidly upon the question. I have not the honor to be acquainted with the Senator from Delaware and as far as he is concerned I have no friendship to reward and no enmity to punish. I think I can do that Senator justice. I shall always try to rise above party in questions of this kind, let the result be as it may. When a Senator on this floor is charged with bribing his way here I will always take my stand as I have taken it, in favor of suspending that Senator until the charges are proven or disproven.
Mr. GRAY. If the charge is made against the Senator from Monroe will the Senator vote to suspend him?
Mr. LASSELLE. I will do it all the time. I will vote against allowing any Senator properly charged with bribery coming in here and voting. And, Mr. President, it seems to me if there is any case in which we should suspend any Senator it should be this very case. I submit whether it is not suspicioned by the people all over the land that the fountains of legislation are corrupt. We hear of it in Congress; and in the Legislature of Indiana. It is lamentable to admit it but we must, that a portion of the people have not that confidence in our integrity and honor that they should have. And it is our duty to examine into charges of this kind, and allow no gentlemen to exercise his full rights as a Senator here until that charge is decided and if it is proved upon him, we ought to make such an example of him as will deter any gentleman from undertaking to buy his way into the Senate of the State.
Then came the recess for dinner.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The Senate met at 2 o'clock, when--
Mr. HOOPER said: Mr. President: I am gratified to day in the discussion of this question to find our friends on the other side have progressed somewhat--that they are not maintaining to-day the same position they did a few days ago when this question was up for debate. The Senator who last addressed the Senate just before dinner, Mr. Lasselle, has admitted and I think correctly, beyond all doubt, that the Senator from Delaware is a Senator upon this floor. It will be remembered when we had this question under discussion before, no such position was admitted by them. They held that he was not a Senator; that he had been irregularly sworn, and therefore it was equivalent to not being sworn page: 441[View Page 441] at all and he was not a member of this Senate. That is substantially the position taken by them in the prior discussion of this case. We held that he had been regularly sworn in, that he was a legal member of this body and had the right to vote and participate in our deliberations until his case has been acted upon and his seat declared vacant in some mode recognized by the law and the Constitution. That was the position we took, and I must say to-day that I think we maintained our view of the case and presented authorities maintaining it.
[Mr. H. recapitulated his argument--here-tofore given in these pages.]
A disclaimer has already been put in and I repeat it, that there is no desire on the part of any Senator on this floor to prevent a fair investigation of this question and I feel confident upon another point: that no question of party can possibly influence my mind when it comes to voting upon the question of the qualification of that Senator. If these charges are true, and if supported by evidence that shall carry conviction to my mind, certainly the fact that he is returned as a Republican Senator will have no possible weight with me in determining my vote on this question.
Two years ago, I remember, a part of the Republican Senators here voted to turn out a Republican, and it was not regarded as a party question. It is true there was a difference of opinion among Senators as to his qualification, and I believe every Senator upon the Republican side of the House voted as their judgments and consciences dictated they should vote upon that question, and no question of party entered into it at all. I remember I was one who entertained the view that he was not qualified and I voted to vacate his seat and admit the gentleman contesting a Democrat.
I believe this is a question of vital importance, and believing so, I shall maintain it by my vote. It affects the rights of his constituents and the rights of the constituents of every member on this floor. If it be true that a member can be silenced on this floor because somebody sees fit to make charges against him--if upon such ex parte testimony this Senate is to deprive the counties of Delaware and Madison of a representation upon this floor, they may disqualify just so many constituents as in their pleasure they may see fit. There is no authority for any such doctrine as that; it would be absolutely destroying every principle of our government if such doctrine were recognized. That is all there is in the case. Under what parliamentary law do they plant themselves when they say they have the right to do that? It is simply the power of force--the power of a majority to do as they may see fit.
So thoroughly am I convinced that we are right, that if I were the Senator from those counties I would stay in my seat, and upon every roll call I would demand, not on behalf of myself but on behalf of my constituents, my right to vote until my seat had been vacated in some mode recognized by the Constitution and laws of the land. The Senator ought to demand that his vote be taken, and insist upon it. I believe there is enough principle involved in this question to make it an issue, and to insist upon the right of his being recognized, let the consequences be what they may, as far as legislation is concerned until this question is settled.
Mr. BROWN. I would like to ask the Senator: Suppose Mr. Burson is sworn in now and an investigation takes place, and the committee report that the charges presented are true, what vote does it take then to exclude him from the privileges of the Senate--two-thirds or a majority?
Mr. HOOPER. My present opinion is that a majority vote is all that is required.
Mr. DWIGGINS was now recognized by the Chair.
Mr. BROWN [addressing Mr. Hooper.] Upon that vote are you willing Mr. Burson should vote?
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. The Senator from Jasper [Mr. Dwiggins] has the floor.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I ask the Senator to yield that the Senate may concur in a resolution of the House. [For a joint Convention at this hour to elect Directors for the Benevolent Institutions of the State.]
Mr. DWIGGINS. I cannot surrender the floor. It strikes me, Mr. President, as a remarkable proposition at this particular time, to amend rule 17 of this Senate; and I am not able to understand how the amendment offered by the Senator from Shelby [Mr. Glessner] can possibly apply to any kind of a case except the case of the Senator from Delaware. Now, sir, in what case could the rule possibly apply, in the course of general legislation for the interest of the State? What law or bill could be introduced here, sir, that the records of the Senate would show any Senator personally interested in the passage or defeat of? It occurs to me, sir, such a case as that never could arise it the history of any legislative body. Why, sir, how would you get it on the journals? Suppose a bill was introduced in which I was directly and personally interested, in what manner, sir, would the journals of this House show that interest? In no conceivable way I can think of, unless some Senator knowing the facts, should come in and enter a protest. Hence I come to one conclusion, that this amendment is introduced and pressed here, for the express and only purpose--not impugning the motives of the Senator who in- page: 442[View Page 442] troduced it, for I cannot and would not, if I could--only to prevent Mr. Burson from discharging his duties as a Senator on this floor. It is to meet his case and his alone, and had it not been for his case, in my opinion, this amendment to this rule would not have been offered at this time.
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. President: I understand the Senator to make the statement that this proposition was made for the only purpose, and for no other, to exclude the Senator from Delaware. I ask the Chair to decide whether that language is in order.
Mr. DWIGGINS. I am not impugning the motives of any Senator. I said I had not the right to and would not if I had.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR I do not think the language was improper. It seems to me the Senator was guarded on that point.
Mr. DWIGGINS. I did not intend to impugn the motives of any man.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR The Senator will proceed.
Mr. DWIGGINS. Now, sir, I have said about all I desire to say upon the branch of the question I was discussing. In this discussion Senators have taken a wide range, in other words gone back, as I conceive, to discuss the merits of the case of Senator Burson. Now, sir, I propose to address myself briefly to that. I was not here as Senators know, at the organization of the Senate, but since coming here have heard the journals of the Senate read in the Burson case. As I understand it, it is this: [Mr. D. recited the history as recorded in the journals.]
Mr. BROWN (interposing.) I rise to a point of order. I ask the President of the Senate to require the Senator from Jasper [Mr. Dwiggins] to confine himself within reasonable points on the subject matter embraced in the amendment. The Burson case has nothing to do with the subject matter of this resolution. The only question involved is: Is it right or wrong for a Senator to be permitted to vote upon a question where the record of the Senate shows he is immediately interested?
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. The Chair would state that it is utterly out of the power of the Chair to determine exactly the range debate has to take. The Chair is inclined to give the largest liberty. Senators in the discussion of this resolution have the right certainly to discuss how it may affect any question before the Senate by way of understanding the application or force of the rule, and it is not for the Chair to say that the discussion is not within the legitimate range of debate.
Mr. BROWN. Does that involve the right to discuss whether the action of the Senate was right or wrong?
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. Perhaps not strictly by itself, but that question has entered into the discussion and the Chair will not be inclined to sustain the point of order.
Mr. DWIGGINS. The point I desire to make is that you cannot notify this body of anything by notifying individual members outside of the Senate. When is this body a Senate? Not before the President called the Senate to order. The point I make is that the protest which was given was no notice at all. Therefore I take it, that all done in this case, prior to the time of the organization of the Senate simply goes for naught. What was done afterward? [Mr. D. recounted the facts.]
Mr. BROWN (interposing.) I rise to a point of order. I ask the President of the Senate to decide that the Senator from Jasper [Mr. Dwiggins] has no right to discuss the action and conduct of either the President nor the Ssnate in swearing or refusing to swear Mr. Burson in.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. The Chair will not decide any such thing. The Chair has decided that the Senator from Jasper has the right to discuss this question as fully as any other Senator, and I do not understand that he is doing anything else.
Mr. BROWN. I appeal from the decision.
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. President:
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR The Senator from Jasper has the floor.
Mr. HUGHES. I suggest to the Senator from Jasper to let the concurrent resolution be disposed of. It won't take but a few minutes.
Mr. BROWN. If he does that I will hear him with pleasure.
Mr. DWIGGINS. I cannot yield the floor. All I ask is that I have the same show as Senators on the other side of the House.
Mr. JOHNSTON. I hope the Senator from Jackson [Mr. Brown] will not take an appeal. I am satisfied the ruling of the Chair is not correct but I do not wish to vote that way.
Mr. BROWN. Of course I will not place any friend of mine in such a position. But it does seem to me the Senator over the way might suspend his remarks, when the Senate will certainly give him the floor five minutes after.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. Does the Senator withdraw his appeal.
Mr. BROWN. Yes, sir.
Mr. DWIGGINS. Now, sir, Senator Burson presented his credentials, was sworn in and took his seat precicely as all other Senators. If that does not make him a Senator with all the rights and privileges of any other Senator, then, sir, I am unable to conceive why it does not. It is claimed by Senators on page: 443[View Page 443] the other side that this Senate has the power to take hold of a Senator and shut his mouth or do whatever else the Senate may choose in presenting him from discharging his duty here, in other words that the Senate has original and exclusive jurisdiction in this question and therefore can do whatever it chooses in the premises. That is a proposition I contravert.
The point I make is this: the Senate has original and exclusive jurisdiction to try these kind of cases but the Senate must try them inside the Constitution and the laws of the State. This Senate has no jurisdiction except as we get it from the Constitution. We haven't the right to sit here and enact laws as a king upon the throne without reference to the Constitution and laws. There are just two ways to oust a member: one by a successful contest and the other by expulsion. It is not pretended that there is any contest here. The gentleman who had the honor to be a candidate against Mr. Burson is not here demanding that he should have the seat.
The Senator from Monroe [Mr. Hughes] this morning said, that Mr. Burson was the first man ever voted for his own admission in any representative body, or any other body;- that there was not such a case on record. In reply, I might say that the precedent set by this Senate in attempting to take away any rights of Mr. Burson as a Senator before a trial, is unheard of and unprecedented. The Senator from Monroe cited the case of a member of Congress from the State of Kentucky. This is a different case. There never has been a case in the history of this nation, when a member of Congress after he had once been sworn in, where he was deprived of the right to vote or discharge all the duties of his position until regularly tried and excluded. There is no such case upon the record.
But it is claimed by gentlemen that Mr. Burson was irregularly sworn in. I have listened very attentively, but have not heard one word of explanation as to in what the irregularity consisted. How was it irregular? In what manner was it irregular? I would be obliged to gentlemen on the other side if they will inform me wherein the irregularity consisted. I claim that there was no irregularity.
Now, sir, I always have learned and have read in the Constitution and laws of the State, that a man should have a fair and impartial trial before he could be convicted; and I have read another law, and that is: that every man charged with crime as Mr. Burson is, should be presumed to be innocent until he is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If Senators know any different law in the statutes I would be grateful if they would call my attention to it. They seem to adopt a different rule: that a man is to be punished and then tried.
If the Senator from Monroe is correct in stating that the Lieutenant Governor was acting as a mere clerk in the organization of the Senate, certainly an appeal from a ruling made by him when acting as a clerk would not lie, and that action of the Senate was void because there was no foundation upon which it could rest. But admitting, for the sake of argument, that was all right, what then? Why, sir, there is another rule of law I have learned in my short experience as a lawyer, and that is this: If a court commits an error, that court has the right to correct that error. I think that is a pretty tolerable plain proposition. Any court has the right to correct an error committed by that court. Now the point I make is, that the Senate did act without authority of law and outside of the provision of the Constitution and if I am correct the Senate has committed an error. If the Senate has committed an error, why shall we go on the whole term of the session and stick to that error? Why not correct it? We certainly have the right to correct that error and I claim now is the time to do it.
As the senator from Monroe [Mr. Hughes] has severely criticised Mr. Burson for having twice voted in his own behalf, I would say that if my privileges and rights were attempted to be taken away from me by this Senate, without authority of law, I would do every thing--I would use all the power God Almighty and man has placed in my reach, to protect my rights and assert them at every point. And I would do that if I stood here alone with all my party friends against me, as well as the other side of the House, because when a man accepts an office from the people he owes that people a duty. Mr. Burson represents thirty or forty thousand people of Indiana and if he is silenced they are without representation here. They have rights here, and it is not only his privilege but his duty to insist upon his rights at every point and insist that they shall be recognized. I would do this: When the Committee reports upon his case, were I in his place, I would decline to vote upon that proposition but I would insist upon my right to vote upon every other proposition prior to the time of that report.
I believe when the committee come to examine his case, they will give a fair and impartial hearing, and weigh the matter carefully and make a report in accordance with their views. A committee in a case of this kind, sitting as a court, it is their duty, as I believe they will, to try this case without regard to political proclivities. That is what I desire, and what I insist upon. I want the committee to go to the bottom of this matter, and I am informed by Mr. Burson that is what he demands.
page: 444[View Page 444]This is not merely Mr. Burson's case, for we are establishing a precedent for all time to come. Here is a Senate in which the Democrats have twenty-six members, and if Mr. Burson is counted the Republicans have twenty-four. Suppose the Republicans go round fishing over the State and procure protests to be signed against four or five Democrats and we vote them out. Then the Democrats to retaliate go to our Districts and they obtain protests upon which we are voted out; then we go back upon them and in a few days we have no Senate here. If this rule will apply in one case it will apply in fifty, and if that is to be the rule we might as well go home and let the people legislate in some other way. This is the legitimate result and I protest that it is a dangerous precedent to establish.
Now, sir, to recapitulate. I am not speaking against time, gentlemen, I am speaking because I think the case demands it and because my constituents demand that I should. [Mr. D. then rehearsed his argument.]
Mr. BROWN, Mr. WILLIAMS and others endeavored to obtain the floor but it was awarded to--
Mr. STEELE who said: Mr. President: I understand the question before the Senate to be on making a certain rule by which this body is to be governed during the present session. That being the question before the Senate it becomes important to ascertain whether the senator from Delaware [Mr. Burson] has any interest in this matter one way or the other. It is insisted that he is not a senator here, and that the record shows he is not a senator. If so I have not understood it. I occupy the position taken by the senator from Jasper [Mr. Dwiggins] that the record is in our favor.
[Mr. S. referred to the proceedings in this case previous to the organization of the Senate; and contended that an appeal taken afterward cannot go back of the record; in support of which he read from the State Constitution section 10 of Art. IV, and also from the Xlth Ind. page 404.]
Mr. Burson was properly sworn in and made a senator upon this floor like other senators, and it is not competent for a majority of the Senate to silence him or require that he should sit here silently and not represent his constituents. If by the vote of a mere majority you can silence one member you can silence another, and by the same process, I believe they can silence any member opposed to them on this floor. It is a principle that is monstrous in itself.
But the opposition do not appear to agree in their tactics. One senator turns round and says that Mr. Burson is not a senator; another senator, the senator from Cass [Mr. Lasselle] gets up in the face of the Senate and says, those who hold to that doctrine are wrong in his judgment--that Mr. Burson is a senator here. He speaks of him as such and takes this ground, that although he is a senator, the senate by a mere majority have the right to silence his voice in this body, so it shall not be heard. It amounts to the same thing;- If they have the right to say he shall not vote for a day or a week, they have the right to say he shall not vote during the session,- that his constituents shall not be represented during the whole session of this body.
A great deal has been said by gentlemen as to the delicacy they would have in attempting to represent their district if charges were made against them. The best men the Lord ever made have had charges made against them--even our Saviour himself, the Great Giver and Upholder of the universe, was not exempt from such charges as this. The best men that ever lived in the world, whether senators, representatives or Presidents, have had charges made against them. It is an easy matter to make charges, but it is often found difficult to meet charges. I have long known the senator from Delaware and I don't believe for myself--I will not believe until I see the testimony--until I hear the testimony against him, that he is that corrupt man that some senators here would have us believe he is. They say they would be too delicate to undertake to do their duty here--too delicate to undertake to represent their constituents after they have sworn before the God that made them that they would well and faithfully perform their duties as senators. For modesty's sake they would turn round and purjure themselves morally here, rather than do the duty they sworn to do.
Gentlemen tell us that we are for the purpose of making precedents, and I tell senators that this is a new precedent. It is something that has not been known in the legislation of this country before; and I will say to gentlemen that their chickens will come home to roost after a while.
[Mr. S. here referred to Mr. Lasselle's speech, and a conversational discussion ensued between the two--the latter correcting the former's construction of his remarks.]
It is not only the privlege of Mr. Burson to vote, but he should not exercise that kind of modesty spoken of, for he is doing injustice not only to himself but to the citizens of the counties of Delaware and Madison in refusing to vote, in failing to vote and in demanding to vote. I think almost any other Senator would have risen in their places and demanded that their names be called upon every measure that a vote was taken on. I think we are going to need all the help we can get, for I understand the honorable Senator from Monroe [Mr. Hughes] advertised here in advance that we need not expect any of his aid. We need not page: 445[View Page 445] expect a vote from him for he declares in his place that he expects to vote with the Democratic party from now to the end of the session.
Mr. HUGHES. I hope the Senator will not misrepresent me. I wish the Senator to understand that no party owns my vote. I think he had an illustration of that yesterday.
Mr. STEELE. When the Senator rises and says, "I advertise you that I intend to vote with another party," I am bound to believe him.
Mr. HUGHES. This debate is taking a wide range and the Senator is carrying it a little too far to assert that because I said I would act with a party, that binds me never to vote on that side of the house. I say it is unfair and untrue.
Mr. STEELE. I ask the gentleman to state whether he did not make the remark that he would vote with that party?
Mr. HUGHES. I did, and I repeat it but that does not bear the construction the Senator is putting upon it.
Mr. STEELE. I have always entertained a very high opinion of the Senator from Monroe and believe he speaks that which he means. He did say and admits it now, that he would vote with the Democratic party and I have made it no stronger. If it is untrue, as he states, it is not my making, but the untruth comes from the Senator from Monroe.
Mr. HUGHES. As I see from the last three speeches that the lot has fallen upon that side of the House, I give notice now that I will seek the floor when the Senator is done.
Mr. STEELE. I have no objection. When the Senator rises and admits he made the declaration, I ask if it is not a fair conclusion for me to say that I regard him as speaking the truth; and yet he will rise in his place and say it is not true. If it is not true I use his own language. I ask the Senator here to determine.
Mr. LASSELLE. I rise to a point of order.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. State your point of order.
Mr. LASSELLE. That the gentleman is dealing in personalities in violation of the rule of the Senate.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. I don't understand the senator to be dealing in personalities.
Mr. STEELE. I would say in answer to the gentleman that instead of doing so I am intending to have the Senate understand that I was placing the most implicit confidence in the word of the senator from Monroe. I have the most explicit confidence and exercised it, and so I believe in my heart it is true that he will in all probability vote that way, and make his word true. I was only remarking that I suppose we want all the help we could get; that if members here elected by the Republican party give us notice in this our time of need that they do not expect to act with us, but against us, it behooves us to try and get all the helf we can.
Now, Mr. President, I think I have said just about all I want to say. But before I set down I will observe that as far as the action of this committee is concerned in the case of Mr. Burson I believe the committee will act honestly; and if the charges are made out I will vote for his expulsion from this body.
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. President: I am not responsible to this body, nor to any senator upon this floor, for the manner in which I discharge my duties here. My defense is reserved for another forum. I am the peer of every senator upon this floor, responsible only to my constituents, and it is not their privilege or right--it is not courteous for senators to read me lectures. With reference to the remark made by the senator from Grant [Mr. Steele] that "we have received notice we are to have no help from the senator from Monroe," I did not say so. When the senator from Randolph [Mr. Gray] took it upon himself to play the school master and rebuke me, I replied that I would act with the Democratic party here and expect to. Every man who wants to put a fair construction upon my languague understood that I would act with them as a party organization, upon party questions, and not upon matters of legislation. After my explanation--after I called the senators attention in a courteous manner to the fact that he was perverting what I said, he goes on and reiterates it. That simply amounts to an avowal on his part. Notwithstanding he winds up by unfurling his flag and declares he wants Mr. Burson to help him.
Mr. STEELE (in his seat.) That's my idea.
Mr. HUGHES. Exactly, so I understand. It's not the Constitution, not law, not justice, not the rights of the District composed of the counties of Delaware and Madison, nor the rights of Mr. Burson, it's "help me Cassius or" the Republican party is about to sink. That is what's the matter.
Oh, yes, whenever they see the evidence made perfectly plain against him, they will vote to exclude him. Exactly so. I reckon gentlemen who speak in the tone and temper of the senator who has just taken his seat will hardly ever see the evidence against Mr. Burson. As a certain distinguished United States senator said in caucus about the fifteenth amendment, "we must ratify this amendment whether or no, because these votes are amongst us, and we must have these votes; we want these votes to protect the power of the republican party." The whole of this argument is evidently a page: 446[View Page 446] preconcerted plan; because notice has been given that this contest is to be continued throughout this session, and it is being followed out. The whole argument on this question is known to be a deliberate and systematic assault upon the established policy of the party to which these parties belong. It is astonishing that they question the propriety of the action of the Senate in this case. It has been the uniform practice of that party in the General Government for the last six or eight years to do the very thing we have done in this case; and all the denunciations that gentlemen heap upon this act here, passes over the head of the Democratic party and strikes with full force the Republican party from the ranks of which they came. It was only yesterday, or the day before we were informed that the United States Senate decided to swear in a senator who has been standing at their door for four years.
Mr. WILLIAMS. They are not yet sworn in.
Mr. HUGHES. The committee decided they are entitled to their seats That Senator is an unquestioned Union man, and I say that the attempt made by the State Journal to excuse the matter by saying that he was not elected till after the negroes left the Assembly is a mistake; he was elected while the negroes were there. There was no pretence of illegality of election and they have kept him out two thirds of his term. Here a charge is made by both Democrats and Republicans supported by the oaths of men of both parties--it is a contest between two Republicans and yet we are to be lectured here in this manner and denounced for doing the same thing that party has done in one hundred cases and is doing now.
Sir, I don't propose following the example of gentlemen and discuss this case at length at all. I propose to do nothing of the sort, with the temper in which this discussion is conducted and the party feeling that is manifested. We are told that no business is to be done without this question being thrust in. All I have to say is this, gentlemen must act upon their own responsibility. If they think it more important to sit here and, to use a common phrase, fillibuster about a question to be decided in a few days than to go on and pass the necessary acts of legislation, that is a matter they are responsible to their constituents for. The other side have the means of protecting themselves. In the first place we are in the right; we have law and justice upon our side, and it does begin to look a little as though this great clamor was made to cover up an investigation into this charge of bribery. It begins to wear the appearance as though these gentlemen who began so smoothly were afraid to meet the charges against Mr. Burson. But, sir, the charges will be investigated. And for myself, I wish to give notice to gentlemen on the other side, that if legislation is to be obstructed here in this manner according to the intimation that has been thrown out, I suppose about as many of their bills may be found laying on the table as the bills of members on this side; and until this thing is stopped--until a better spirit is manifested--I will move to lay upon the table, and call the yeas and nays upon it, every bill and every resolution that comes from that side of the House, and I hope gentlemen on this side of the House will sustain me in it; and we will see what progress will be made in party tactics here.
I hope gentlemen of the majority from this hour forth will consume as little time in speaking as may be; that these long speeches upon party questions may be done. Let us put them to shame by our good behaviour. Let them froth and foam and inveigh against practices and precedents of their own making, but let us go on with the dignity of Senators and do our duty here. If they don't get tired of this business their constituents will get tired of them. Now, Mr. President, I ask for the previous question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gray in the Chair) put the question, but not being able to determine from the sound, a division was called for and the secretary counted 19 senators rising in the affirmative and the same number in the negative; therefore, the yeas and nays were demanded and ordered. Pending the roll call--
Mr. WADGE moved that the name of the senator from Delaware and Madison [Mr. Burson] be called.
Mr. BROWN raised the point of order that this motion cannot be entertained.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The position I occupy is well known; I shall certainly order his name called.
Mr. HUGHES. I presume not in the face of the order of the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, sir, I shall.
Mr. HUGHES. I move to amend the motion that the Senate direct the secretary not to call his name.
Mr. MARTINDALE. I move to lay that motion on the table and call the yeas and nays.
Mr. HOOPER. I rise to a question of order. The motion and amendment are both out of order for they were made after the roll call was commenced.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair decides that the point of order made by the senator from Whitley [Mr. Hooper] is well taken.
Mr. MARTINDALE. I maintain that it is the duty of the Chair, without motion, upon request of the senator from Delaware or any other senator, to call his name, and no motion page: 447[View Page 447] can be entertained by the Chair to prevent a member of this Senate from voting.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair was going to state that when in the roll call we come to the senator from Delaware if he requests that his name be called the secretary should call his name.
Mr. HUGHES. The secretary is under the order of the Senate, and I suppose he will obey the order of the Senate.
Mr. BROWN. Suppose he don't call it?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Then I shall call it--the Chair will call it. (Applause from the Republican benches.)
Mr. MARTINDALE. I ask that the President call his name.
Mr. BROWN. I object.
Mr. HUGHES. I insist that the senator from Marion is going ahead--
Mr. MARTINDALE (interrupting.) I ask again that the name of the senator from Delaware be called.
Mr. HUGHES. If the Chair decides that he is to be called I appeal from the decision.
Mr. MARTINDALE. I ask that he be called.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair has once or twice ordered the secretary to call his name.
Mr. HUGHES. I have not heard the secretary call the name and I don't presume he will. He is under the order of the Senate. The secretary is not under the order of the Chair.
Mr. HOOPER. I will read the rule. [He read rule 19--see page 406 BREVIER REPORTS volume XI.] Now I insist it to be the duty of every senator to vote; [here the Lieutenant Governor took the Chair] and any senator has the right to demand that the name of the senator from Delaware be called. It is not a motion but simply a question of right.
Mr. HUGHES. The senator from Delaware has not been regularly sworn in.
Mr. MARTINDALE. I rise to a point of order. There is nothing before the Senate for gentlemen to discuss. I demand simply that the name of the senator be called.
Mr. HUGHES. I am speaking to a question of privilege. The Chair has gone as far as consistent and proper in rendering to Mr. Burson all the aid he can, but the Senate has decided the name should not be called.
Mr. MARTINDALE. I rise to a point of order. There is nothing the gentleman can discuss on the call of the roll. I demanded that the name of the senator from Delaware be called, and upon that he proceeded to discuss my demand.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. I did not know this question was coming up or I should not have been absent from the Chair. I understand that a member a few moments ago did demand that the occupant of the Chair should call the name of the senator from Delaware; and I understood the President to say that he recognized the fact that the senator from Delaware was a senator in this body. I hold to that same opinion, the vote of the Senate to the contrary notwithstanding, but I can imagine no possible good to rise to the Senate or the senator from Delaware to have his name called, because I recognize the fact that the Senate has power to correct its journals, and it is not in the power of the Presiding Officer to put a name on the journals and keep it there against the will of a majority of the Senate.
SEVERAL SENATORS--"Announce the vote."
Mr. MARTINDALE. Before the vote is announced I ask--
Mr. BROWN. I rise to a point of order.
Mr. MARTINDALE (continuing.) If the Chair decides not to call the name of the senator from Delaware, and will not call it, I want to know whether the senator desires to be excused from voting or not?
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. I overrule the point of order raised by the senator from Marion [Mr. Martindale] for the reason that it is no part of the duty of the Chair to call the name of any senator. The yeas are 24, nays 23--so the demand for the previous question is seconded by the Senate.
The motion to indefinitely postpone, &c--see page 108, about twenty lines from the bottom of the first column.
