« AnteriorContinuar »
I come now to a question which is, if possible, still more important. Have we the power to establish and carry into execution a measure like this? I answer, certainly not, if we derive our authority from the Constitution, and if we are bound by the limitations which it imposes. This proposition is perfectly clear-that no branch of the Federal Government, executive, legislative, or judicial, can have any just powers except those which it derives through and exercises under the organic law of the Union. Outside of the Constitution we have no legal authority more than private citizens, and within it we have only so much as that instrument gives us. This broad principle limits all our functions, and applies to all subjects. It protects not only the citizens of States which are within the Union, but it shields every human being who comes or is brought under our jurisdiction. We have no r ght to do in one place, more than in another, that which the Constitution says we shall not do at all. If, therefore, the southern States were in truth out of the Union, we could not treat their people in a way which the fundamental law forbids.
Some persons assume that the success of our arms in crushing the opposition which was made in some of the States to the execution of the Federal laws reduced those States and all their people the innocent as well as the guilty-to the condition of vassalage, and gave us a power over them which the Constitution does not bestow or define or limit. No fallacy can be more transparent than this. Our victories subjected the insurgents to legal obedience, not to the yoke of an arbitrary despotism. When an absolute Sovereign reduces his rebellious subjects, he may deal with them according to his pleasure, because he had that power before. But when a limited monarch puts down an insurrection, he must still govern according to law. If an insurrection should take place in one of our States against the authority of the State government, and end in the overthrow of those who planned it, would that take away the rights of all the people of the counties where it was favored by a part or a majority of the population? Could they, for such a reason, be wholly outlawed and deprived of their representation in the Legislature? I have always contended that the Government of the United States was sovereign within its constitutional sphere; that it executed its laws, like the States themselves, by applying its coercive power directly to individ uals; and that it could put down insurrection with the same effect as a State, and no other. The opposite doctrine is the worst heresy of those who advocated secession, and cannot be agreed to without admitting that heresy to be right.
and the Union remained unbroken. In Massachusetts, in Pennsylvania, in Rhode Island, and in New York, at different periods in our history, violent and armed opposition to the United States was carried on; but the relations of those States with the Federal Government were not supposed to be interrupted or changed thereby, after the rebellious portions of their population were defeated and put down. It is true that in these earlier cases there was no formal expression of a determination to withdraw from the Union, but it is also true that in the southern States the ordinances of secession were treated by all the friends of the Union as mere nullities, and are now acknowledged to be so by the States themselves. If we admit that they had any force or validity, or that they did in fact take the States in which they were passed out of the Union, we sweep from under our feet all the grounds upon which we stand in justifying the use of Federal force to maintain the integrity of the Government.
This is a bill passed by Congress in time of peace. There is not in any one of the States brought under its operation either war or insurrection. The laws of the States and of the Federal Government are all in undisturbed and harmonious operation. The courts, State and Federal, are open, and in the full exercise of their proper authority. Over every State comprised in these five military districts life, liberty, and property are secured by State laws and Federal laws, and the national Constitution is everywhere in force and everywhere obeyed. What, then, is the ground on which this bill proceeds? The title of the bill announces that it is intended 'for the more efficient government" of these ten States. It is recited by way of preamble that no legal State governments "nor adequate protection for life or property," exist in those States, and that peace and good order should be thus enforced. The first thing which arrests attention upon these recitals, which prepare the way for martial law, is this: that the only foundation upon which martial law can exist under our form of government is not stated or so much as pretended. Actual war, foreign invasion, domestic insurrection-none of these appear; and none of these in fact exist. It is not even recited that any sort of war or insurrection is threatened. Let us pause here to consider, upon this question of constitutional law and the power of Congress, a recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in ex parte Milligan.
I will first quote from the opinion of the majority of the Court: "Martial law cannot arise from a threatened invasion. The necessity must be actual and present, the invasion real, such as effectually closes the courts and deposes the civil administration." We see that martial law Invasion, insurrection, rebellion, and domes comes in only when actual war closes the courts tic violence were anticipated when the Govern- and deposes the civil authority; but this bill, in ment was framed, and the means of repelling and time of peace, makes martial law operate as suppressing them were wisely provided for in though we were in actual war, and become the the Constitution; but it was not thought neces- cause, instead of the consequence of the abrogasary to declare that the States in which they tion of civil authority. One more quotation: might occur should be expelled from the Union."It follows from what has been said on this subRebellions, which were invariably suppressed, occurred prior to that out of which these questions grow; but the States continued to exist
ject that there are occasions when martial law can be properly applied. If, in foreign invasion or civil war, the courts are actually closed, and
it is impossible to administer criminal justice according to law, then, on the theatre of active military operations, where war really prevails, there is a necessity to furnish a substitute for the civil authority thus overthrown, to preserve the safety of the Army and society; and as no power is left but the military, it is allowed to govern by martial rule until the laws can have their free course.'
I now quote from the opinion of the minority of the Court, delivered by Chief Justice Chase: "We by no means assert that Congress can establish and apply the laws of war where no war has been declared or exists. Where peace exists, the laws of peace must prevail." This is sufficiently explicit. Peace exists in all the territory to which this bill applies. It asserts a power in Congress, in time of peace, to set aside the laws of peace and to substitute the laws of The minority, concurring with the majority, declares that Congress does not possess that power. Again, and, if possible, more emphatically, the Chief Justice, with remarkable clearness and condensation, sums up the whole matter as follows:
recent decision of the Supreme Court has traced the history, vindicated the dignity, and made known the value of this great privilege so clearly that nothing more is needed. To what extent a violation of it might be excused in time of war or public danger may admit of discussion; but we are providing now for a time of profound peace, where there is not an armed soldier within our borders except those who are in the service of the Government It is in such a condition of things that an act of Congress is proposed which, if carried out, would deny a trial by the lawful courts and juries to nine millions of American citizens, and to their posterity for an indefinite period. It seems to be scarcely possible that any one should seriously believe this consistent with a Constitution which declares, in simple, plain, and unambiguous language, that all persons shall have that right, and that no person shall ever in any case be deprived of it. The Constitution also forbids the arrest of the citizen without judicial warrant, founded on probable cause. This bill authorizes an arrest without warrant, at the pleasure of a military commander. The Constitution declares that "There are under the Constitution three kinds of military "no person shall be held to answer for a capital jurisdiction-one to be exercised both in peace and war; or otherwise infamous crime unless on presentanother to be exercised in time of foreign war without the boundaries of the United States, or in time of rebellion and ment by a grand jury." This bill holds every civil war within States or districts occupied by rebels treated person, not a soldier, answerable for all crimes as belligerents; and a third to be exercised in time of inva- and all charges without any presentment. The sion or insurrection within the limits of the United States, or during reb Ulion within the limits of the States main Constitution declares that "no person shall be taining adhesion to the national Government, when the deprived of life, liberty, or property without due public danger requires its exercise. The first of these may process of law." This bill sets aside all process be called jurisdiction under MILITARY LAW, and is found in of law, and makes the citizen answerable in his acts of Congress prescribing rules and articles of war, or otherwise providing for the government of the national person and property to the will of one man, and forces; the second may be distinguished as MILITARY GOV-as to his life to the will of two. Finally, the ERNMENT, superseding, as far as may be deemed expedient, Constitution declares that the privilege of the the local law, and exercised by the military commander, under the direction of the President, with the express or writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended implied sanction of Congress; while the third may be de- unless when, in case of rebellion or invasion, the by Congress, or temporarily, when the action of Congress public safety may require it;" whereas this bill cannot be invited, and in the case of justifying or excusing declares martial law (which of itself suspends this peril, by the President, in times of insurrection or invasion, great writ) in time of peace, and authorizes the ordinary law no longer adequately secures public safety and military to make the arrest, and gives to the private rights." prisoner only one privilege, and that is a trial "without unnecessary delay." He has no hope of release from custody, except the hope, such as it is, of release by acquittal before a military commission.
nominated MARTIAL LAW PROPER, and is called into action
or of civil or foreign war, within districts or localities where
It will be observed that of the three kinds of military jurisdiction which can be exercised or created under our Constitution, there is but one that can prevail in time of peace, and that is the code of laws enacted by Congress for the govern ment of the national forces. That body of military law has no application to the citizen, nor even to the citizen soldier enrolled in the militia in time of peace. But this bill is not a part of that sort of military law, for that applies only to the soldier, and not to the citizen, whilst, contrariwise, the military law provided by this bill applies only to the citizen and not to the soldier.
I need not say to the Representatives of the American people that their Constitution forbids the exercise of judicial power in any way but one; that is, by the ordained and established courts. It is equally well known that in all criminal cases a trial by jury is made indispensable by the express words of that instrument. I will not enlarge on the inestimable value of the right thus secured to every freeman, or speak of the danger to public liberty in all parts of the country which must ensue from a denial of it anywhere or upon any pretense. A very
The United States are bound to guarantee to each State a republican form of government. Can it be pretended that this obligation is "ot palpably broken if we carry out a measure like this, which wipes away every vestige of republican government in ten States, and puts the life, property, liberty, and honor of all the people in each of them under the domination of a single person clothed with unlimited authority?
The Parliament of England, exercising the omnipotent power which it claimed, was accustomed to pass bills of attainder; that is to say, it would convict men of treason and other crimes by legislative enactment. The person accused had a hearing, sometimes a patient and fair one; but generally party prejudice prevailed, instead of justice. It often became necessary for Parliament to acknowledge its error and reverse its own action. The fathers of our country determined that no such thing should occur here They withheld the power from Congress, and thus for bade its exercise by that body; and they pro
vided in the Constitution that no State should pass any bill of attainder. It is, therefore, impossible for any person in this country to be constitutionally convicted or punished for any crime by a legislative proceeding of any sort. Nevertheless, here is a bill of attainder against nine millions of people at once. It is based upon an accusation so vague as to be scarcely intelligible, and found to be true upon no credible evidence. Not one of the nine millions was heard in his own defense. The representatives of the doomed parties were excluded from all participation in the trial. The conviction is to be followed by the most ignominious punishment ever inflicted on large masses of men. It disfranchises them by hundreds of thousands, and degrades them all, even those who are admitted to be guiltless, from the rank of freemen to the condition of slaves.
The purpose and object of the bill, the general intent which pervades it from beginning to end, is to change the entire structure and character of the State governments, and to compel them by force to the adoption of organic laws and regulations which they are unwilling to accept if left to themselves. The negroes have not asked for the privilege of voting; the vast majority of them have no idea what it means. This bill not only thrusts it into their hands, but compels them, as well as the whites, to use it in a particular way. If they do not form a Constitution with prescribed articles in it, and afterwards elect a Legislature which will act upon certain measures in a prescribed way, neither blacks nor whites can be relieved from the slavery which the bill imposes upon them. Without pausing here to consider the policy or impolicy of Africanizing the southern part of our territory, I would simply ask the attention of Congress to that manifest, well-known, and universally acknowledged rule of constitutional law which declares that the Federal Government has no jurisdiction, authority, or power to regulate such subjects for any State. To force the right of suffrage out of the hands of the white people and into the hands of the negroes is an arbitrary violation of this principle.
in the ratification of the amendment to the Federal Constitution abolishing slavery forever within the jurisdiction of the United States, and practically excludes them from the Union. If this assumption of the bill be correct, their concurrence cannot be considered as having been legally given, and the important fact is made to appear that the consent of three-fourths of the States-the requisite number-has not been constitutionally obtained to the ratification of that amendment, thus leaving the question of slavery where it stood before the amendment was officially declared to have become a part of the Constitution.
That the measure proposed by this bill does violate the Constitution in the particulars mentioned, and in many other ways which I forbear to enumerate, is too clear to admit of the least doubt. It only remains to consider whether the injunctions of that instrument ought to be obeyed or not. I think they ought to be obeyed, for reasons which I will proceed to give as briefly as possible.
In the first place, it is the only system of free government which we can hope to have as a nation. When it ceases to be the rule of our con duct, we may perhaps take our choice between complete anarchy, a consolidated despotism, and a total dissolution of the Union; but national liberty, regulated by law will have passed beyond our reach.
It is the best frame of government the world ever saw. No other is or can be so well adapted to the genius, habits, or wants of the American people. Combining the strength of a great empire with unspeakable blessings of local selfgovernment, having a central power to defend the general interests, and recognizing the authority of the States as the guardians of industrial rights, it is "the sheet-anchor of our safety abroad and our peace at home." It was ordained to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, promote the general welfare, provide for the common defense, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity." These great ends have been attained heretofore, and will be again, by faithful obedience to it; but they are certain to be lost if we treat with disregard its sacred obligations.
It was to punish the gross crime of defying the Constitution, and to vindicate its supreme authority, that we carried on a bloody war of four years' duration Shall we now acknowledge that we sacrificed a million of lives and expended billions of treasure to enforce a Constitution which is not worthy of respect and preservation?
This bill imposes martial law at once, and its operations will begin so soon as the general and his troops can be put in place. The dread alternative between its harsh rule and compliance with the terms of this measure is not suspended, nor are the people afforded any time for free deliberation. The bill says to them, take martial law first, then deliberate. And when they have done all that this measure requires them to do, other conditions and contingencies, over which they have no control, yet remain to be fulfilled Those who advocated the right of secession before they can be relieved from martial law. alleged in their own justification that we had no Another Congress must first approve the consti- regard for law, and that their rights of property, tutions made in conformity with the will of this life, and liberty would not be safe under the Congress, and must declare these States entitled Constitution, as administered by us. If we now to representation in both Houses. The whole verify their assertion, we prove that they were question thus remains open and unsettled, and in truth and in fact fighting for their liberty, most again occupy the attention of Congress, and instead of branding their leaders with the and in the meantime the agitation which now dishonoring name of traitors against a righteous prevails will continue to disturb all portions of and legal Government, we elevate them in histhe people. tory to the rank of self-sacrificin patriots, conThe bill also denies the legality of the gov-accrate them to the admiration of the world, and ernments of ten of the States which participated place them by the side of Washington, Hamp
den, and Sydney. No; let us leave them to the infamy they deserve, punish them as they should be punished, according to law, and take upon ourselves no share of the odium which they
should bear alone.
It is a part of our public history, which can never be forgotten, that both Houses of Congress, in July, 1861, declared, in the form of a solemn resolution, that the war was and should be carried on for no purpose of subjugation, but solely to enforce the Constitution and laws; and that when this was yielded by the parties in rebellion, the contest should cease, with the constitutional rights of the States and of individuals unimpaired. This resolution was adopted and sent forth to the world unanimously by the Senate, and with only two dissenting voices in the House. It was accepted by the friends of the Union in the South, as well as in the North, as expressing honestly and truly the object of the war. On the faith of it, many thousands of persons in both sections gave their lives and their fortunes to the cause. To repudiate it now by refusing to the States and to the individuals within them the rights which the Constitution and laws of the Union would secure to them, is a breach of our plighted honor for which I can imagine no excuse, and to which I cannot voluntarily become a party;
The evils which spring from the unsettled state of our Government will be acknowledged by all. Commercial intercourse is impeded, capital is in constant peril, public securities fluctuate in value, peace itself is not secure, and the sense of moral and political duty is impaired. To avert these calamities from our country, it is imperatively required that we should immediately decide upon some course of administration which can be steadfastly adhered to. I am thoroughly convinced that any settlement, or compromise, or plan of action which is inconsistent with the principles of the Constitution will not only be unavailing, but mischievous; that it will but multiply the present evils, instead of removing them. The Constitution, in its whole integrity and vigor, throughout the length and breadth of the land, is the best of all compromises. Besides, our duty does not, in my judgment, leave us a choice between that and any other. I believe that it contains the remedy that is so much needed, and that if the co-ordinate branches of the Government would unite upon its provisions, they would be found broad enough and strong enough to sustain in time of peace the nation which they bore safely through the ordeal of a protracted civil war. Among the most sacred guaranties of that in strument are those which declare that "each State shall have at least one Representative," and that "no State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate." Each House is made the "judge of the elections. returns, and qualifications of its own members," and may, "with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member." Thus, as heretofore urged, "in the admission of Senators and Representatives from any and all of the States, there can
*This is not quite accurate. There were five negative votes in the Senate. (See Senate Journal, 1st Sess. 29th Congress, page 92.)
be no just ground of apprehension that persons who are disloyal will be clothed with the powers of legislation; for this could not happen when the Constitution and the laws are enforced by a vigilant and faithful Congress." When a Senator or Representative presents his certificate of election, he may at once be admitted or rejected; or, should there be any question as to his eligi bility, his credentials may be referred for investigation to the appropriate committee. If admitted to a seat, it must be upon evidence satisfac tory to the House of which he thus becomes a member, that he possesses the requisite constitu tional and legal qualifications. If refused admission as a member for want of due allegiance to the Government, and returned to his constituents, they are admonished that none but persons loyal to the United States will be allowed a voice in the legislative councils of the nation, and the political power and moral influence of Congress are thus effectively exerted in the interests of loyalty to the Government and fidelity to the Union." And is it not far better that the work of restoration should be accomplished by simple compliance with the plain requirements of the Constitution, than by a recourse to measures which in effect destroy the States, and threaten the subversion of the General Government? All that is necessary to settle this simple but important question, without further agitation or delay, is a willingness on the part of all to sustain the Constitution and carry its provisions into practical operation. If to-morrow either branch of Congress would declare that, upon the presentation of their credentials, members constitutionally elected and loyal to the General Government would be admitted to seats in Congress, while all others would be excluded, and their places remain vacant until the selection by the people of loyal and qualified persons; and if, at the same time, assurance were given that this policy would be continued until all the States were represented in Congress, it would send a thrill of joy throughout the entire land, as indicating the inauguration of a system which must speedily bring tranquillity to the public mind.
While we are legislating upon subjects which are of great importance to the whole people, and which must affect all parts of the country, not only during the life of the present generation, but for ages to come, we should remember that all men are entitled at least to a hearing in the councils which decide upon the destiny of themselves and their children. At present ten States are denied representation, and when the Fortieth Congress assembles on the fourth day of the present month, sixteen States will be without a voice in the House of Representatives. This grave fact, with the important questions before us, should induce us to pause in the course of legislation which, looking solely to the attainment of political ends, fails to consider the rights it transgresses, the law which it violates, or the institutions which it imperils.
ANDREW JOHNSON. WASHINGTON. March 2, 1867. The votes on this bill were as follow: IN HOUSE.
1867, February 20-The bill passed finally, as above-yeas 128, nays 46. as follow:
NAYS-Messrs. Buckalew, Cowan, Darts, Dizon, Doolittle, Hendricks, Nesmith, Norton, Patterson, Sulsbury-10. Whereupon the PRESIDENT of the Senate declared the bill to be a law.
Veto of the Civil fenure Bill, March 2, 1867.
YEAS-Messrs. Alley, Allison, Ames, Anderson, Arnell,
Pomeroy, Price, Raymond, Alexander II. Rice, John H. Rice,
NAYS-Messrs. Ancona, Bergen, Boyer, Campbell, Chanter, Cooper, Dawson, Denison, El ridge. Finck, Glossbrenner, Goodyear, Aaron Harding, Hawkins, Hise, Edwin N. Hubbell, James R. Hubbell, Humphrey, Hunter, Kerr, Kuykendall, Le Blond, Leftwich, Marshall, McCullough, Niblack, Nicholson, Noell, Phelps, Radford, Samuel J. Randall, Ritter, Rogers, Ross, Rousseau, Shanklin, Sitgreaves, Strouse, Tuber, Nathaniel G. Taylor, Nelson Taylor, Thornton, Trimble, Andrew H. Ward, Winfield, Wright-46.
Same day-The SENATE passed the bill-yeas 35, nays 7, as follow:
YEAS-Messrs. Brown, Cattell, Chandler, Conness. Cragin, Creswell, Edmunds, Fessenden, Fogg, Foster, Fowler, Frelinghuysen, Harris, Henderson. Howard, Ilowe, Johnsım, Kirkwood, Lane, Morgan, Morrill. Poland, Pomeroy, Ram ey, Ross, Sherman, Stewart, Sumner, Trumbull, Van Wintle, Wade, Willey, Williams, Wilson, Yates-35. NAYS-Messrs. Buckalew, Cowan, Davis, Hendricks, Nes
mith, Patterson, Saulsbury-7.
March 2--The bill was vetoed. Same day-The HOUSE re-passed the billyeas 138, nays 51, as follow:
That every person holding any civil office to which he has been appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and every person who shall hereafter be appointed to any such office and shall become duly qualified to act therein, is and shall be entitled to hold such office until a successor shall have been appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, and duly qualified; and that the Secretaries of State, of the Treasury, of War, of the Navy, and of the Interior, the Postmaster General, and the Attorney General, shall hold their offices respectively for and during the term of the President by whom they may have been appointed. and for one month thereafter, subject to removal by and with the advice and consent of the Senate."
These provisions are qualified by a reservation in the fourth section, "that nothing contained in the bill shall be construed to extend the term of any office the duration of which is limited by law." In effect the bill provides that the President shall not remove from their places any of the civil officers whose terms of service are not limited by law, without the advice and consent YEAS-Messrs. Alley, Allison, Ames, Anderson, Arnell, of the Senate of the United States. The bill in Delos R. Ashley, James M. Asley, Baker, Baldwin, Eanks, this respect conflicts, in my judgment, with the Barker, Baxter, Beaman, Benjamin, Bidwell, Bingham, Constitution of the United States. The question, Blaine, Blow, Boutwell, Brandegee, Bromwell, Broomall, Buckland, Bundy, Reader W. Clarke, Sidney Clarke, Cobb, as Congress is well aware, is by no means a new Conkling, Cook, Cullom, Darling, Davis, Dawes, Defrees, one. That the power of removal is constitutionDelano, Deming, Dixon, Dodge, Donnelly, Driggs, Dumont, Eckley, Eggleston, Eliot, Farnsworth, Farquhar, Ferry, ally vested in the President of the United States Garfield, Grinnell, Griswold, Abner C. Harding, Hart, Hayes, is a principle which has been not more distinctly Henderson, Higby, Hill, Holmes, Hooper, Hotchkiss, Asahel declared by judicial authority and judicial comW. Hubbard, Chester D. IIubbard, Demas Hubbard, jr., John II. Hubbard, James R. Hubbell, Halburd, Ingersoll, mentators than it has been uniformly practiced Jenckes, Julian, Kasson, Kelley, Kelso, Ketcham, Koontz, upon by the legislative and executive departLaflin, George V. Lawrence, William Lawrence, Loan, Long-ments of the Government. The question arose year, Lynch, Marquette, Marston, Marvin, Maynard. McClurg, McIndoe, McKee, McRuer, Mercur, Miller, Moor- in the House of Representatives so early as the head, Morrill, Morris, Moulton, Myers, Newell, O'Neill, Orth, 16th of June, 1789, on the bill for establishing Paine, Patterson, Perham, Pike, Plants, Pomeroy, Price, an executive department denominated The DeRaymond, Alexander II. Rice, John H. Rice, Rollins, Sawyer, Schenck, Scofield, Shellabarger, Sloan, Spalding, Starr, Separtment of Foreign Affairs." The first clause vens, Stokes. Thayer, Francis Thomas, John L. Thomas. jr., of the bill, after recapitulating the functions of Trowbridge, Upson, Van Aernam, Burt Van Horn, Robert T. that officer and defining his duties, had these Van Horn, Hamilton Ward, Warner, Henry D. Washburn, words: "to be removable from office by the William B. Washburn, Welker, Wentworth, Whaley, WilIt was moved liams, James F. Wilson, Stephen F. Wilson, Windom, Wood- President of the United States bridge, and SPEAKER COLFAX-138. to strike out these words, and the motion was sustained with great ability and vigor. It was insisted that the President could not constitutionally exercise the power of removal exclusively of the Senate; that the Federalist so interpreted the Constitution when arguing for its adoption by the several States; that the Constitution had nowhere given the President power of removal, either expressly or by strong implication, but, on the contrary, had distinctly proYEAS-Messrs. Anthony, Cattell, Chandler, Conness, Cra-vided for removals from office by impeachment gin. Creswell, Edmunds, Fessenden, Fogg, Foster, Fowler, Frelinghuysen, Grimes, Harris, Henderson, Ioward, Howe, only.
NAYS-Messrs. Ancona, Bergen, Boyer, Campbell, Chanler, Cooper, Dawson, Denison, Eldridge, Finck, Glossbrenner, Goodyear, Hale, Aaron Harding, Harris, Hawkins, Hise Hogan, Edwin N. Hubbell, Humphrey, Hunter, Jones, Kerr, Kuydendall, Latham, Le Blond, Leftwich, Marshall, McCulLough, Niblack, Nicholson, Noell, Phelps, Radford, Samuel J. Randall, Ritter, Rogers, Ross, Rousseau, Shanklin, Sitgreaves, Stillwell, Strouse, Taber, Nathaniel G. Taylor, Nelson Taylor, Thornton, Trimble, Andrew H. Ward, Winfield, Wright-51. Same day-The SENATE re-passed it-yeas 38, nays 10, as follow:
Johnson, Kirkwood, Lane, Morgan, Morrill, Nye, Poland, A construction which denied the power of Pomeroy, Ramsey, Ross, Sherman, Sprague, Stewart, Sumner, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Wade, Willey, Williams, Wil-removal by the President was further maintained BOD, Yates-38, by arguments drawn from the danger of the