is nothing conflicting in the testimony of this ex-rebel congressinan and this Federal captain. The contestee, Mr. Young, is fully identified in the testimony as the same person alluded to by sle witness Greenup Nickell. That witness (p. 17, Mis. Doc. No. 13) testifies: “Question. Haveyou seen him since, and if so, state the circumstances? ." Answer. I don't know whether I have ever seen him or not; but at February court, just previous to the May election last, I was in court in the courthouse at Moorehead, and while the court was going on I heard someone speak out, 'How are you, Judge Young?' I was at oncereminded of the same expression I had heard at Owingsville, and turned to see who it was. Tom Hayes, who had been a captain in the rebel army, was standing near, and I took him to be the man. from the voice, who then addressed the man he called Judge Young. I was not acquainted myself with Judge Young, but when I saw him there in the court-house at Moorehead, I took him to be the same I had seen at Owingsville, and believe that he was the same man. These are the only two times I have seen Judge Young, if this was him.”

On page 40, same book of testimony, another witness testifies:

“There has not lived any other man called Judge Young in, this county, except John D. Young, the party to this contest,” &c.

§: page 45, same book, another witness tes: tifies:

‘John D. Young is the only man by the name of Young in this county who has been a judge. He was judge of the Bath county court.”

The testimony of Dr. John H. Williams, on age 31, Mis. Doc. No. 13, proves that Mr. oung gave “aid and comfort” to the enemies of the Government by associating with rebel soldiers. He testifies:

“I have been acquainted with John D. Young some ten or fifteen years, and do state that during the rebellion I saw John D. Young on Beaver creek and at Thomas Greenwald's, who confessed to be a captain in the rebel army; and I saw Mr. Young pass in toward Blackwater, where I was informed that there was a rebel camp on Blackwater; and I was told by the rebel soldiers that John D. Young was engaged in recruiting soldiers for the rebel army; and i never heard any person dispute his being a sympathizer with the rebels until he became a candidate for Congress. And I further state that I saw him in company with rebel soldiers that claimed to belong to Peter Everett, and were with him in his last raid in Kentucky, and, so far as I could judge, John D. Young seemed to be o situated when with those soldiers; and I was informed by the rebel soldiers that John D. Young was an officer in their army: this I was told by Jacob Edwards and two of the Soxton boys, who were in the rebel army; and I saw Mr. Young passing some two or three times, and I think oftener.”

There is one other point in this evidence to which I ask the attention of the House, and I

will pass from it. In 1861 there was a gathering of rebels at Prestonburg, Kentucky, They gathered there

[blocks in formation]

... Henry H. Ewing sworn and examined.
... To Mr. McKEE: -
“I live in Owingsville, Kentucky. I o
with Mr. Young. I do not know anything about his
disloyalty. I believe he was a southern sympathizer.
He was at Prestonburg when there were a parcel of
men there collected to be organized into the confed-
erate service. They were not organized at the time.
I have no knowledge of Mr. Young having been a
candidate for an ostice in orio; I do not
know that he had a gun there. He showed me a gun
standing in the porch of the House where he was
staying, and asked me to take care of it. He said,
“There is a good gun; take care of it.' He never
spoke to me about going into the rebel army.
“I ain a son of Mr. Joshua Ewing. I and my two
brothers were in the contederate army. Mr. Young

had nothing to do with inducing me to join the con-
federate army. I understood at the time that Mr.
Young was at Prestonburg, that his object was to
get his brother-in-law to go home.
“To Mr. Scofi Eld :

“I took care of the gun for three or four weeks, and then, when I was of home. I gave it to a cousin of mine in the army, and I think he sold it. I after

ward went back to the army, and stayed till the surrender. The gun was a minie rifle. I do not know why Mr. Young brought it there. He never inquired of me what became of it. I never told him.

“To Mr. KERR: “I do not know whether Mr. Young knew I was going into the rebel army. “To Mr. McKEE: “Guns were scarce there at the time. There were no guns there of any consequence.

“To Mr. Cook: “It was understood for what purpose the men were there in camp; that they were preparing to go into the southern army.”


A message was received from the President, by Mr. Moore, his Private Secretary, informing the House that the President had returned, with objections thereto, the bill (H. R. No. 1059) to admit the State of Arkansas to representation in Congress. Mr. COOK resumed the floor.

at a rendezvous for the purpose of organizing a regiment for the rebel service. While they were there gathered John D. Young was at that place. It is alleged by him, and there is roof tending to show it, that he went there or the purpose of dissuading a brother in-law, I believe, from joining the rebel regiment. But it is in proof that when he went there, understanding fully the design of that gathering, and that a rebel regiment was to beformed, he took with him a minie rifle. It is in proof that arms were very scarce among the rebels at that point. It is further in proof that when Young'left Prestonburg he said to one of the sons of Joshua .# who was a Union man, whose son Young had threatened to have with him in South Carolina to fight the Yankees, who was then there for the so." of joining that rebel organization, an * There is a good gun; take care of it;" that Ewing took the gun, carried it with him into the rebel army, and when he left the rebel service ave it to his cousin, who continued in the army. #. never was asked for the gun by Young; he never was called to account for it at all.

The gun passed from Young to Ewing, a rebel

soldier, manifestly with the intent of supplying

what was then the greatest need of the rebel | soldiers gathered there, arms to fight against

the Government.
Mr. BECK. I know the gentleman does not

desire to misstate the testimony.
Mr. COOK. Certainly not.

Mr. BECK. I know you do not. , You will

find by the testimony that it is not shown that

Mr. FARNSWORTH. Before the gentle. man proceeds 1 ask him to yield to let the veto

message from the President on the Arkansas

bill be Mr.

resented, OOK. I yield for that purpose.

[blocks in formation]

Government by arbitrarily de resentation in the Senate and

act supreto, were proper and constituMy opinion, however, in reference to these measures has undergone no change, but, on the contrary, has been strengthened by the results which have attended their execution. 2ven were this not the case, I could not consent to a bill which is based upon the assumption either that by an act of rebellion of a portion of its people the State of Arkansas seceded from the Unión, or that Congress may at its pleasure, expel or exclude a State fro the Union, or interrupt its relations with the priving it of rep- House of i.e. sentatives. If Arkansas is a State not in the

Union, this bill does not admit it as a State into the Union. If, on the other hand, Arkansas is a State in the Union, no legislation is neces. sary to declare it entitled “to representation in Congress as one of the States of the Union.” The Constitution already declares that “each State shall have at least one Representative;" “that the Senate shall be composed of two Sen. ators from each State;” and “that no State without its consent shall be deprived of its suf. frage in the Senate.” That instrument also makes each House “the judges of the elections, returns, and ualifications of its own members,” and there. ore all that is now necessary to restore Arkan. sas in all its constitutional relations to the Government is the decision by each House upon the eligibility of those who, presenting their credentials, claim seats in the respective Houses of Congress. This is the plain and simple plan of the Constitution; and believing that had it been pursued when Congress assem. bled in the month of December, 1865, the restoration of the States would long since have been completed, I once again recommend that it be adopted by each House in preference to legislation which I respectfully submit is not only of at least doubtful constitutionality, and therefore unwise and dangerous as a precedent, but is unnecessary, not so effective in its opera' tion as the mode prescribed by the Constitution, involves the additional delay, and from its terms may be taken rather, as applicable 9," Territory about to be admitted as one of the United States than to a State which has occur pied a place in the Union for upward of a quarter of a century: The bill declares the State of Arkansas enti. tled and admitted to representation in Congo as one of the States of the Union upon the following fundamental condition: “That the constitution of Arkansasshall neverboso amended or changed as to deprive any cition or class of cons of the United States of the right to wo who are entitled to vote by the constitution herein recognized, except as a punishment for such crimes as it."ow fonies at common law, whereof they shall be duly convicted under laws equally applica: to'o"the habitants of said State: Polo, That any alteration of said constitution, propo in its effect, only be made in regard to the time and place of residence of voters.” I have been unable to find in the Constitution of the United States any warrant for the exer cise of the authority thus claimed by Congress. in assuming the power to impose a "sun" mental condition” upon a State which ho been duly admitted into the Union on an equal

| footing with the original States, in all respects

whatever, Congress asserts a right to one.” State as it may a Territory, and to regulato the highest prerogative of a free people—the elect. ive franchise,

the Constitution to the States themselves, on

this subject woul mental principle of the Republic,

which justly belongs to the States or ple, to the true source of all political

whose will all is subordinate,

of the “fundamental condition” which

such action,

unreasonable to suppose that made to modify its provisions, and

its any alteration,

This question is reserved by

to concede to Congress the power to regulo

§ be to reverse the fundw

and to o in the hands of the Federal Government (who ** *p, the

is the creature of the States) the so * * *...*

the peo: s

ower by

whom our Federal system was created, and *

The bill fails to provide in what manner the State of Arkansas is to signify its so. Qūgress endeavors to make unalterable audio. Scable. Nor does it prescribe the penal." be imposed should the people of the State amend or change the particular portions of" constitution which it is one of the purposes 9 the bill to perpetuate, but leaves them in." certainty and doubt as to the consequences." when the circumstances unor which this constitution has beenbrougho" attention of Congress are considered, loo. eforts will be especially those in respect to which this measure prohib, It is seriously questio whether the constitution has been raúñeo onajority of the persons who, under the ao ot March 2, 1867, and the acta supplemeno!

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

so or alled to registration and '' th o Section ten of the sched.

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

were entitled to registration and to Section ten of the sched

thereto, vote upon that issue. ule provides that“No person disqualified from voting or registering under this constitution shall yote for sandidates for jiào, nor shall be permitted toyote for the roo. }... orjection of the constitution at the polls herein authorized.” Assumed to be in force before its adoption, in disregard of the law of Congress, the consitution undertakes to impose upon the elector other and further conditions. The fifth sec. tion of the eighth article provides that “all persons, before registering or voting,” must take and subscribe an oath which, among others, contains the following clause: “That I accept the civil and political equality of all mon, and agree not to attempt to deprive any person or persons, on account of race, ooloo, or pro*ious condition, of any political or civil right, privi. lege, or immunity enjoyed by any other class of men.” It is well known that a very large portion of the electors in all the States, if not a large majority of all of them, do not believe in or accept the political equality of Indians, Mongolians, or negroes with the race to which they belong. If the voters of many of the States of the North and West were required to take such an oath as a test of their qualification, there is reason to believe that a majority of them would remain from the polls rather than com: ply with its degrading conditions. How far j to what extent this test-oath prevented the registration of those who were qualified under the laws of Congress, it is not possible to know; but that such was its effect, at least sufficient to overcome them all and give a doubtful majority in favor of this constitution, there can be no reasonable doubt. Should the people of Arkansas, therefore, desiring to regulate the elective franchise so as to make it conform to the constitutions of a large proportion of the States of the North and West, modify the provisions referred to in the “fundamental condition,” what is to be the consequence? Is it intended that a denial of representation shall follow 7 And if so, may we not dread, at some future day, a recurrence of the troubles which have so long agitated the country? Would it not be the part of wisdom to take for our guide the Federal Constitution, rather than resort to measures which, looking only to the present, may in a few years renew, in an aggravated form, the strife and bitterness caused by legislation which has proved to be ill-timed and unfortunate? ANDREW JOHNSON. WASHINGTON, June 20, 1868. The SPEAKER... The question under the Constitution is, Will the House, on reconsid: erosion, agree to the passage of this bill? Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. I move the previous question on that. Mr. ROBINSON. Is not the privileged question which has been up, the contested: election case, the matter now in order, and *We not insist on going on with that question? lso SPEAKER. As the Constitution is o: in authority with the House than the ; *s, this question is higher in authority than so question which the House has been con*fing—the contested-election case. Mr. ROBINSON. I do not remember that P* of the Constitution, sir. o If the gentleman will House i. o ‘. the rules of the Correct. gether he will find that the Chair is *: STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. It would Nowell for the gentleman to begin and *... it through. The §'EAKER. The rule can be found on P** 188 of the Digest. to os of Pennsylvania. I object #.'"g read. Let the gentleman read it to: jo, This is a privileged ques. in out. i. Constitution, which is higher e . the rules of the House. main question o was seconded and the

*SPEAKER"The constitution requires

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]

ward–31. NOTWOTING—Messrs. Arnell, James M. Ashley, Baker, Baldwin, Barnes, Barnum, Bromwell, Broomall, Burr, Chanler, Dawes, Dixon, Dodge, Finney, Gravely, Halsey, Hopkins. Asahel W. Hubbard, Richard D. Hubbard, Humpbrey, Hunter, Kelley, Kitchen, Koontz, Laflin, William Lawrence, Marshall, McCullough, Miller, Myers, Nicholson, Nunn, Orth, Perham, Phelps, Randall, Raum, Ross, Selye, Stone, Thomas, Von Auken, Burt Van Horn, Robert T. Van Horn, Elihu, B. Washburne, Thomas Williams, Stephen F. Wilson, and Wood-48. During the call of the roll the following announcements were made: Mr. GETZ, I desire to state that my colleague, Mr. RANDALL, is paired with my colleagues, Mr. MYERs and Mr. STEPHEN F. WIL

SON. Mr. KOONTZ. I desire to state that I am paired with Mr. McCULLQUGH, of Maryland, on this question. If I voted I would vote in the affirmative. Mr. BENJAMIN. My colleague, Mr. VAN HoRN of Missouri, is detained from the House by sickness. ... If he were present he would vote in the affirmative. Mr. WARD. My colleague, Mr. WAN HoRN of New York, is detained from the House, for what reason I cannot tell. If he were present I have no doubt he would vote ay. Mr. Es, DRIDGE. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. BURR, is paired with my colleague Mr. HoPKINs. I think Mr. BURR would vote against this bill; and I think very likely my colleague, Mr. Hopkins, would vote the other

way. Mr. RAUM. My §o. Mr. MARSHALL, is absent by leave of the House. Before leaving I paired with him on this bill. He would be against the bill and I for it. Mr. ROBINSON. My colleague, Mr. BARNES, is absent on leave. e would vote against this bill if he were here. Mr. BOYER. My colleague, Mr. VAN AUKEN, is absent on leave. If he were present he would vote against this bill. After the conclusion of the call of the roll, The SPEAKER said: One the question, “Will the House on reconsideration agree to the passage of an act to admit the State of Arkansas to representation in Congress?” the eas are 111, and the nays 31. Two thirds Hon. voted in the affirmative, the bill has again passed the House, and will be transmitted, with the message of the President, to the Senate for their reconsideration. Mr. ROBINSON. Is it in order now to move a reconsideration of the vote just passed ? The SPEAKER. It is not, according to the

Digest. Mr. ROBINSON. As I was put down by the Constitution, I do not want to be now put down by the Digest. The SPEAKER. The rule, to be found on | page 188 of the Digest, is as follows: “A vote on the passage of a vetoed bill cannot be


The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Cook] is now entitled to the floor. \ . Mr. Robinson. Will the gentleman yield to me for a moment to make an explanation? Mr. COOK. I cannot yield for any explana' tion. COVINGTON AND OHIO RAILROAD.

Mr. POLSLEY. Will the gentleman yield to me for a moment to introduce a bill for reference?

Mr. COOK. Certainly.

Mr. POLSLEY, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill (H. R. No. 1282) relating to the Covington and Ohio railroad, and its estab: lishment as a post route and military road of the United States; which was read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on Roads and Canals.

Mr. POLSLEY. I ask that the bill, with the accompanying memorial, be printed.

The motion to print was agreed to.

ELECTION contest—M’KEE vs. YoUNg.

The House then resumed the consideration of the contested-election case of McKee vs. Young, ninth congressional district of Ken; : on which Mr. Cook was entitled to the OOt. Mr. COOK. I was in error in saying that the evidence shows that Mr. Young himself took this gun to the rebel rendezvous; but the evidence is that the gun was there; that there Young assumed to control it; that he pointed it out to Ewing; told him it was a good gun, and that he must take care of it; that Ewin took the gun with him into the rebel army, .# was never asked for it afterward; and the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Beck] was in error in saying that there was no proof that Hos was in the rebel army. He stated himself : “I and my tw .." or of weeks, and then, when I was coming home, I gave it to a cousin of mine in the army, and I think he sold i. sovent back to the army and stayed till Now, sir, the proof is that at this encamp. ment where men were being enlisted for the rebel army there was a minie rifle over which Mr. Young exercised control. Mr. Ewing took charge of the gun; he took it and kept it. Under all these circumstances it is persectly apparent that this gun was furnished by Mr. Young for the rebellion to supply a need in the rebel camp for offensive weapons. I pass now to refer to the pointing out to a squad of rebel cavalry where a Union soldier might o The only question that can be raised is as to the identity of the man who pointed out the house where a Union soldier was to the rebel squad. The witness tes. tifies that, when they came into the town of Qwingsville, the place of Judge Young's resi. dence, this man met them there. The witness says that he pointed out the house where the Union soldier was, and he told the rebel sol. diers to go for him. Some time afterward he was seen, by the witness in court and recognized by him. The question of identity is the most material one on this point, and it being in the power of Judge Young when the com: mittee was in Kentucky to present himself before this witness and ask whether he was the man or not, and not having done so, it seems to me that the F. is conclusive that it was Judge Young who pointed out this house where * Union soldier was captured. . I pass now from this point and this r tion. If the rule o by the House o, to be reversed, that any man who by act or speech gave aid and comfort to the rebellion and under such circumstances as to show it was designed to give, aid and encouragement to the rebellion, shall not be entitled to take a seat upon this floor, if that rule is not to be done away with and the decision, then I think it certain that this first resolution reported by the committee must be adopted. I now come to the other resolutions. I am aware there may be honest difference of opinion as to the conclusions to which the commit

[ocr errors]

tee have arrived. I will give briefly the reasons which induced the committee to come to the conclusion that Mr. McKee was entitled to the seat from the ninth congressional district of Kentucky. The official majority returned for Mr. Young was 1,479 votes. From the testimony I think it is clear that of these 625 votes were cast by men who had been soldiers in the rebel army. The condition of these soldiers at that time was this: the rebel armies had surrendered to the Union armies, and upon the condition that the company and regimental officers signed paroles for their men and the men were allowed to return to their homes, there to be unmolested by the United States authorities so long as they remained faithful to their paroles and obeyed the laws where they resided. This is a part of the public history of the country. These men, then, were in the condition of paroled prisoners of war. They were not included in the amnesty proclamation of the President. Prior to this election, on the 29th of May, 1865, the President of the United States issued an amnesty proclamation specially excepting from such amnesty, under the tenth exception, all men in the rebel army who had been citizens of States in which loyal State governments had not been overthrown. These men, then, were paroled prisoners of war, specially exempted from amnesty in the President's proclamation. They were like the rebel soldiers in the field, excepting time fact that they had been captured. Mr. A DAMS. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question ? Mr. COO R. Certainly. Mr. All) AMS. The ground upon which the gentlesnan places himself is that these soldiers are o prisoners of war, and especially excepted from this amnesty. Mr. COOK. I do not think that is quite a fair statement of it. Mr. A DAMS. That is the way I understood it: that they were in the condition of paroled soldiers excepted from amnesty. If they had not been excepted from aunesty they would not be in the condition of paroled prisoners. Is that your position? Mr. COOK. My position is this: that having been surrendered on parole they were in the condition of paroled prisouers of war; that their condition had not been changed by any amnesty proclamation. Mr. AL) AMS. That is what I want to come at. You say they were in the position of paroled prisoners of war because they had surÉ...]". gone home. Now, I desire to ask if there is any proof that any considerable portion of the men who are charged with being rebels were in the war at the close of it, or were included in the terms of surrender. On the contrary, is there not an absence of proof to show that they were in the war at its close and that they were under the terms of surrender? Mr. COOK. The proof is that these men were soldiers in the rebel army. In relation to many of them the time is identified when they were such rebel soldiers, but in relation to many others it is not so identified by the proof. But if they were soldiers in the rebel army and residents of the State of Kentucky who had left the State for the purpose of joining the rebel army, they were either men who had been surrendered by the officers of the rebel army at the time the surrender was made, or there is no proof whatever that they had left the army and É. changed their condition aS rebel soldiers. If, indeed, they were citizens of Kentucky, and had left that State for the purpose of joining the rebel army, then I insist #hey came within the provisions of the act of Congress which declares that where men desert "from the service of the United States, or go away so as to avoid the draft, they are consid: ered as having waived their right of citizenship in the United States. In either event they were not entitled to vote at this election. It seems to me absurd to say that men who were fighting to destroy this Government might be shot on the field of battle: might be made prisoners of war and confined in prison for the

purpose of preventing their destroying the Government by force of arms, and yet that it is impossible to prevent their voting to accom. plish the same object. I desire to submit this question fairly to the House. The proof in relation to the matter is that these men were at some time or other during the continuance of the war rebel soldiers. Mr. Al).AMS. I do not wish to be troublesome, but a question occurs to me here. The gentleman remarked— Mr. COOK. I yield only for a question. Mr. ADAMS. It is necessary to preface it in order that it should be understood. The gentleman stated that he could not see the dif: ference, inasmuch as the war was over, in their condition now and when they were in the army except that they had been captured. I will ask the gentleman if he does not know that Congress, wherever it professes to have the right to regulate the question of suffrage, has not undertaken to deny to rebels the right to vote simply because they were rebels? Has it been the policy of Congress, in States where they have the control of this question, to deny to rebels the right to vote simply because they were rebels except such as were officers above a certain rank Mr. COOK. I understand it to have been the policy, first of the proclamation of the President, and then of the reconstruction acts of Congress, to prescribe who may vote in the organization or reconstruction of those State governments; that is, in the preliminary proceedings therefor. Mr. A DAMS. I will ask the gentleman if he does not think the vote to establish or institute a form of government is just as important and as great an act of sovereignty as a people can perform ; and if it does not require as full and as complete an amnesty, and as full and complete a removal of disabilities for the purpose of voting upon that subject, as for the purpose of voting for the government of a State reformed and reëstablished 2 Mr. COOK, I will answer that question by saying that I do not believe that a rebel soldier, captured or otherwise, whether paroled or not, ought to vote in the election of men who are to make laws for the nation in this House; and that if the rule which the House has adopted be right to refuse seats here to men who have been engaged in armed hostilities to this Government, it is right to reject the votes of men who have been endeavoring by force of arms to overthrow the Government. That is my view of the subject. Now, it is proven that 625 men who voted for Mr. Young were rebel soldiers; and this proof embraces but a portion of the district. It is alleged by the contestant that it was impossible to take proof through the whole of the district in relation to rebel soldiers, because he could not get the officers before whom the notices were given, or any officers in some portions of the district, to take the proof. Eight hundred and eighty-three of the major. ity given for Mr. Young in this district was given in precincts where some one or more of the 9sicers of the election had been a rebel soldier. I understand the law of Kentucky to be that rebel soldiers were disqualified from §§ting as judges of election in any manner. That is my understanding of the law. I will uote the law upon which I rely as sustaining this view. Before I do that, however, I wish to refer very briefly both to the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States and the decision of the supreme court of the State of Kentucky as to what the status of these rebel soldiers was who were not included in any act of amnesty, nor included in any law removing disabilities. The Supreme Court of the United States, in the celebrated prize cases, uses this language in relation to these men: "They have cast off their allegiance and made war

9m their Government, and are none the less enemies because they are traitors.”

The supreme court of the State of Ken

..". which I hold in my hand, in speaking of Morgan's band—a band raised in Ken. tucky, commanded, as I understand, by an officer of the State of Kentucky, and in all respects standing on the same ground as men who had served in the rebel army—used this language: “Public policy, and consequently the law, holds common carriers to a peculiar responsibility extremely stringent, admitting no excuse for the loss of goods except an act of God or of a public enemy which could not by any proper care or available form have been averted. No other human force than that of a public enemy will exonerate the carrier, because otherwise he might fraudulently muster or combine with a force to rob himself. The only question in the case is, was Morgan's band, in the technical sense, a public enemy, and the answer depends on whether the strife, in which they were fighting is a civil war. War is either international or civil, foreign or domes. tic. Insurrection, however violent or formidable, is not war. Civil war is preceded by insurrection, which, however magnified and matured into war in its legitimate sense, and when so characterized, the parties are belligerents and respectively entitled to belligerent rights. And history records no civil war more flagrant or gigantic than that in which our country is now engaged. If this be not war what is war, and when or where did it ever rage and desolate and destroy? It has been so treated at home and abroad by our own Government in all its Departments as well as by foreign Governments, and if it be war now it was as certainly war, and as much war, on the llth of May, 1862.” Both by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States and by the decision of the supreme court of Kentucky these men are held to be public enemies, and the question, it seems to me, presents itself whether men who have been enrolled in the armies of the public enemies of the United States are legal voters to select the law-makers of the Government, the officers of the Government, at a time when they have not in any manner received thoben. efit of any amnesty or any law removing dio bilities? That is the simple question which I desire to present to the House. Mr. JONES. Will the gentleman yield to me for a question? . Mr. COOK. Yes, sir. - - Mr. JONES. I desire to ask him if he is not aware that the Kentucky Legislature passed a law in the year 1865, granting an amnesty to all persons who joined in the rebellion Mr. COOK. No, sir; I am not. I am awao that they repealed the law which formerly existed on the statute-book. Mr. JONES. They passed a law in 1855 that all persons who joined in the rebellion should be restored to their rights as citizens. Well, then, I would ask the gentleman * other question. The Constitution of the United States says that electors for Represeo!" tives in Congress shall have the same lo. tions as electors for the most numerous bro" of the State Legislature. That being the to had not the Legislature of Kentucky a o: grant that amoesty and to say who shall " voters? - f Mr. COOK, Mr. Speaker, if the laws o Kentucky provided that the whole confede.” army which was in Kentucky, o considerable part of the residents of Kento should have the right to vote in electing ". bers of this House, I do not think tha; o House ought to recognize that right, and t . the public enemies of the United State.9". not to control the Government of the Uni States. 's Mr. JONES. That may be the go. opinion, but I ask him to look to the Cons: tution of the United States. The only . ion in the Constitution in regard to the qua ". cation of electors for Representatives ". o Congress of the United States is that whi" have referred to. - uMr. COOK. I cannot yield for an "8 ment. - ight to Mr. JONES. The States have a rigo aS regulate suffrage, and no law of Co yet been passed in contravention of tho. who Mr. COOK. It is contended that mo" the have been engaged in armed ho. United States, unless disqualified by o of Kentucky, have a right to vote.” ol. 0of members of this House. That is the P"P

tucky, in the case of Blaine vs. Adams Express

| sition, and that proposition I deny. The same

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]
[ocr errors]

**, To o of the Common- w

"...: *alter, s to tuonby: o! election, o underth. o in n

... ." States, Mustatuo Koi... o: the con. "

**togeo, be so the sui *lected to of the poosateach h o part place *st, at

An o Pter o: to Amend o so

- *Voi **

[ocr errors]

right to protect itself which authorized the Gov. enment to send troops into the State of Kentucky, not upon the call of her Governor, not upon the call of her Legislature, to subdue an aimed rebellion against the United States by capturing and logio rebel armies upon the soil of Kentucky. The same right exists to prevent the destruction of the Government by the election of officers who shall control the Government for the same ends. The Constitution provides, in the second section of the first article, that— “The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several States.” Now, my position is that a public enemy is no portion of the “people of the several tates.” S Mr. JONES. Read on a little further. Mr. COOK, (reading :)

“And the electorsin each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature.”

Mr. JONES. Exactly. Mr. COOK. It is incompetent for the Legislature of the State of Kentucky to make electors of men who are not people of the State of Kentucky; and if any persons are public enemies they are not people of Kentucky, not a part of the body-politic and public enemies at the same time. Mr. JONES. Then I would ask the gentleman to show me any law of Congress which provides that these gentlemen shall not vote? Mr. COOK. I decline to yield further. I will give the gentleman full opportunity to make his speech. I hold that armed enemies of the Government in Kentucky are not people of the State of Kentucky within the meaning of the Constitution. And these men are, by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, and of the supreme court of the State of Kentucky, public enemies of the Government. I will now refer to the laws of the State of Kentucky, which I think disqualify these enemies of the Government from being judges of election. In Myers's Supplement, page 456, is the following:

An Act to amend section one, article three, chapter to-two, title “Elections,” of the Revised States. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the Common"ealth of Kentucky, That hereafter, so long as there are two distinct political parties in this CommonWoulth, the sheriff, judges, and clerk of election, in all cases of election § the people under the Constitution and laws of the United States, and under the constitution and laws of Kentucky, shall be so selected and appointed as that one of the judges at each place Of Yoling shall be of oue political party, and the other judge of the other or opposing political party: and that a like difference sha'ii exist at each place of }*g, *togen the sheriff and clerk of elections: rovided, That there be a sufficient number of the *mbers of each political partyresident in the several !”inets as aforesaid to fill said offices. And this É.ihool be observed by all officers of this oalth who have the power to appoint any i; aforesaid officers of election, under the pene *.*.* of $100 for each omission, to be recov* by presentment of the grand jury.

That act was passed February 11, 1858. On

the 15th of March, 1862, the following act was passed:

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

read provides that judges of election shall not be selected from those who were engaged in the rebellion for the overthrow of the Government, or who in any way aided, counseled, or advised the separation of Kentucky from the Union by force of arms, or adhered to those engaged in the effort to separate the State from the Federal Union by force of arms. That constitutes the disqualification. And the rule has been well settled that where an officer of election is disqualified from hold. ing the office, that election, is invalid. The rule is different where the judge selected is competent to hold the office, but has not been qualified according to the forms of law. But if the judge or clerk or sheriff of the election : is disqualified by the law from holding the office, it is precisely the same in principle as though the election was held without any officer whatever. There are numerous authorities upon this question. It has been repeatedly settled in this House. ... I will refer to the authorities without reading them particularly. The first case is that of Eastman vs. Scott, in the first volume of Contested Election Cases, page 275, in which that rule was held. The same rule was held in another case, and the same rule was held during the present session in the case of Delano vs. Morgan, which has been decided and approved by the House. In the case of Bennett vs. Chapman, of Nebraska, this same rule was also held. I will now read from the Contested Election Cases, from 1834 to 1865, page 212, Bennett vs. Chapman : “Persons assumed to act as judges of election and clerks were appointed without the requirements of law: This is quite sufficient of itself, according, to well-settled principles repeatedly established by this House for the rejection of the entire poll it. Archer, In the case of James Jackson vs. Anthony Wayne, of Georgia, first session of Second Congress, it was decided by this House that when the law regulating the election required that three magistrates should preside at the election, a return by three persons, two of whom were not magistrates, was defective. The right of suffrage, great and in estimable as it may be, is nevertheless a right regulated and qualified by law. Indeed, it can only be properly exercised in conformity to the requirements of law; without these it would soon cease to be valuable.” I hold, therefore, the law to be well settled that where persons acted as officers of election who were disqualified by the law from holding that office, the entire poll where such officers officiated should be rejected. . Such a poll has no more authority than if it were held by officers who were non-residents or not citizens of the United States. ... It gives no validity to the election. But I will not discuss this ques. tion at any length at present. Mr. BECK. I ask the gentleman how he answers the provisions of two statutes of Kentucky, which I ask permission to read, as they are short, , , First, the act of December 19, 1865, provides: “That an act entitled "An act to amend the fifteenth chapter of the revised statutes entitled Citizens, Expatriation, and Aliens,”’ passed March 11, 1852, be and the same is hereby repealed, and all persons who inay have lost any constitutional, legal, or other right or privilege by the operation of said act shall be and are hereby restored to the full and free use and enjoyment of the same as completely as if such act had never been passed; and this act shall be a o *Hy prosecution or indictment growing out of said act.”

The other act, passed January 13, 1866, provides that the power to pardon persons who have committed treason is vested in the General Assembly, and that all persons who have at any time before committed treason against the Commonwealth shall be absolved from all pain sand penalties.

Mr. COOK. I cannot yield further. I understand that repealed an act different from the one the gentleman has stated. It applied to the act I hold in my hand, an act in reference to the expatriation of citizens, and it does not refer to the act I have quoted. The act I quoted was the act of March, 1862, and is not the act repealed by the act quoted by the gentleman from Kentucky.

Now, if you reject the votes of men who had been in the rebel army, if you throw out the votes taken and certified by the men disquali.

fied by the law of Kentucky srom acting as

officers of election, then Mr. McKee is entitled to a seat upon this floor by a majority of fortyone votes. The whole question as to the right of Mr. McKee to a seat, in my opinion, turns upon the decision of the two points: , , , ,

First. Can a man be elected to a seat in this House by the votes of soldiers of the rebel army? and, second, can votes be counted which were taken and certified by men who were also rebel soldiers, who, by the laws of Kentucky, are disqualified from acting as officers of election? The decision of these questions by the House must determine the right of Mr. McKee to the seat claimed by him.

Mr. Speaker, before I sit down I move the following resolution, that the contestant may be heard in this case:

Resolved, That Samuel McKee, contestant in the case now being considered, be permitted to address the House.

Mr. UPSON. Under the rules of the House.

Mr. COOK. I accept that as a modification of my resolution. The resolution, as modified, was adopted.

Mr. KERR, Mr. Speaker, before I proceed to consider the last report which has been laid upon our tables from the Committee of Elections in this case, I desire briefly to reply to some positions, assumed by my colleague on the committee, in his remarks this morning, because they seem to be somewhat disconnected from the other part of the subject. It is said, in the first place, that Mr. Young, who received a majority of 1,479 votes in the race for election to Congress in this ninth district of Kentucky, is not a loyal man, and therefore ought not to be allowed to take the oath required by the act of 1862. In the minority report, which I had the honor, in the first instance, to submit to this House in refer. ence to this case, I discussed this branch of the case at some length and examined in a spirit of fairness the evidence touching this point. I do not intend now to go over that evidence at any considerable length, for my time will not permit me to do it; but I do invite the attention of gentlemen to that report to the end that they may at least do themselves, if not me, the justice to be advised what the facts are touching this case, so that they can act, and decide intelligently on the final vote. The report of the majority submitted on the 18th instant is strangely brief, meager, and unsatisfactory. It states coul clusions, but gives no evidence. It is first charged that he fed rebel soldiers. The proof on that point, Mr. Speaker, does show that ou several occasions Judge Young did furnish provisions to men who were on. gaged in the rebel service. The testimony also shows, and in some instances from the mouths Of the same witnesses, that some of the best Union men in the ninth congressional district did, just the same thing; and that they did it under o which divested the act of every element of criminality, of every partic of disloyalty; that they § it *: o stances under which every principle of law, of morality, and of humanity, justifies the doing of it, under circumstances under which you Mr. Speaker, and I would have done it. Many times under circumstances of absolute com. pulsion:, , Many times under the influence of §. . o for the purpose of savin nion men from having their pr from them by brute . property taken ..!, Presume that the statement of Mr. Hall with regard to the “basket of provisions,” will hot be taken by an intelligent jurist as evi. dence of anything except the mere fact that he may have seen a negro with a basket. He does not even know what was in the basko the negro only told him. He does not say that it was intended for the rebels at Boyd's,

or that he knows it ever reached them, and

what is more material than all, he neither says nor intimates that Young was at home at the time, or, if at home, that he knew a syllable about what the negro was doing with the basket, what he intended to do with it, what it con: tained, or anything about it. Whatever may


have beer, the motive or intention of the trans-
action, it nowhere appears that Young had any
knowledge of or connection with. it whatever.
And the same is true of the testimony of the
negro man Spottswood Deadman, upon which
the committee seem to have arrived at the con;
clusion that Mr. Young actually gave aid and
comfort to the rebellion. The witness testifies
as follows:
... Question. Where do you reside?
... Answer. At Mount Sterling, Kentucky.
“Question. What do you know of Mr. Young's loy-
alty during the war? -
“Answer. When the rebels were passing oft
Qwingsville, where I was then living, and where Mr.
Young lived, he took a very active part in feeding
them and conveying provisions to them. He always
talked in favor of rebellion, and when rebels were
passing through he would take them to his house and
foed them. He also swapped a horse with Colonel
Morgan, who was in the rebel service.

"Question. What do you know about Mr. Young ... feeding rebels? - '', Answer. I saw provisions going from his house, and saw him taking rebels to the house. "Question. Did not Union men give therebels something to eat?

"Answer. Of course they did. They were forced to o so. "Question. Is that the only aid you know of Mr. Young of to the rebellion ? ... Answer. I believe it is. "Question. At the time you speak of, when Mr. Young sent provisions to the rebel camp, nobody was forced to feed them unless he chose? ... Answer. No, sir. . $.". It was a voluntary act? ... Answer. It was voluntary. Question. There had been no force used on either

side up to the time General Nelson cause into the State *

"Answer. No, sir. ... Question. When was it that you speak off “Anore". In 1851, at the commencement of the war, I saw Mr. Young's boy, Louis, carrying provisions to the camp, which was about two miles out.” Whether this witness is more intelligent than the general mass of negroes in Kentuckyitis not necessary to inquire, but I would invite attention to the character of his statements, and let candid and impartial minds determine for them. selves what weight they are entitled to. He says: “When the rebels were passing through Qwingsville, where I was then living, and where Mr. Young lived, he took a very active part in feeding them, and in conveying provisions to them.". But what does this “very active part” which Mr. Young took in feeding the rebels turn out to be When carefully criticised, it seems, according to his own statements, that “in 1881, at the commencement of the war, he saw Mr. Young's boy, Louis, carrying provisions to the camp, which was about two miles out.” How often? Let him answer himself:

"Question. About how often did you see food going

out from Mr. Young's house to those camps or squads of rebels?

"Answer. Two or three or four times.”

The broad assertion which this witness makes with such avidity, that Mr. Young “took a yery active part in feeding rebels and conveying provisions to them,” seems to have been justified in his mind by having seen another person altogether, the “boy Louis,” two or three or four times, “carrying provisions to the camp, which was about two miles out;” but does he show that Young had anything to do with it? Does he state the quantity or kind of provisions, or that Young ever knew of their being carried to the camp? Does he state how he knows that the provisions ever went to the camp at all, which was two miles out? But where is the “boy Louis?” He could have told whether Young sent him with the provisions, and surely his testimony was not omitted by the contestant on account of his color, race, or condition, and his industry in hunting up other witnesses justifies the conclusion that if he would have testified to anything to Mr. Young's prejudice Mr. McKee . have produced him. “He would take rebels to his house and feed them,” says Deadman; yet how does he know whether they were fed or not?. He may have seen rebels going to Young's house in company with Young, but does it necessarily follow that Young fed them or encouraged them in their enterprise in any way? He says that Young swapped horses with Colonel Morgan; yet Morgan himself swears that Young consented to or rather suggested this

arrangement to save the horse of Mr. Barnes,
one of his Union neighbors, less able to lose
it, an act which should rather be applauded
as one of neighborly kindness and generosity
than paraded as an evidence of disloyalty and
treason. Taking the whole of Deadman's tes:
timony together, I am utterly unable to find
that it furnishes anything like satisfactory evi-
dence of an act or expression calculated or
intended to forward the cause of the rebellion;
and besides, it should be borne in mind, while
considering the testimony of Hall, and Dead:
man, that it is proved by John Trumbo and
others that while the rebels were encamped at
Boyd's, in 1861, they sent into town and com-
pelled the citizens to send them food. It may
be conceded that the boy Louis did take pro-
visions out to the rebel camp two or three or
four times in 1861; that rebels were seen in
Young's company, and going to his house;
yet I insist that there is not an iota of proof
that Young even knew that the provisions
were sent, or that he ever spoke a word of
encouragement to the rebels; and surely it
will not be said that a man whose integrity
even his political enemies speak of as unim-
peachable shall have a stigma cast upon his
good name, be deprived of the position to
which he has been fairly elected, and his con-
stituents o: of their right to be repre-
sented by the man of their choice, on such
flimsy, unsatisfactory, and incoherent evidence
as this.
Such is the casein reference to Judge Young's
feeding rebel soldiers. He did sometimes take
them to his house; he sometimes gave them
food and lodgings; and the testimony shows
in many cases he did these acts for the express
purpose of protecting Union men in the town
where he lived—his neighbors and fellow-citi-
zens and friends—from being outraged by
these men, is that criminal? Will this House
decide that the laws of humanity in times of
public strife are suspended, and that men must
act like brutes, like bitter personal enemies,
like monsters of the forest, toward each other?
The next charge which the majority of the
committee seem to have come to the conclu-
sion “is made to appear by clear and satisfac.
tory evidence” is, that Mr. Young pointed out
a Union soldier to some rebels, who captured
him and carried him off at Young's suggestion.
The only witness who testified to this fact is
Greenup Nickell, a worthless rascal and felon,
who relates the circumstance as follows:
“In the spring of 1863 I was on my way from Mount
Sterling, Kentucky, home. Alter passing Owings-
ville, between Owingsville and State Bridge, 1 was
unet by a squad of confederate soldiers, as they called
themselves, in number from fifteen to twenty, as near
as I can remember. They told me they were going
into Owingsville, and did not allow anybody to go
out, until they got ready, and that I must go back
with them, which I did. After they rode into the
town there was a pretty general rushing of the town
people, who came up or out to see them. Among
others, who came there was a certain gentleman
came, down toward where I was, and up to the men
who had the in charge, and close by where I was
standing; he was pointing his finger in the direction
of a certain house, and named the house, but I don’t
now remember the name of said house, and told the
men that in that house there was a “Yankee soldier.”
and to go for him, which the rebel soldiers did.
part of the lot went to the house, and some who
renained, near me turned toward the gentleman,
whom I did not know, and spoke to him and said:
How are you, Judge Young?” This same min
whom they called Judge Young, and a part of the
rebel soldiers, turned away from me and engaged in
conversation, in rather a lower tone of voice than
at first. I did not hear what was then said, but in a
yery short time a part of the same men went off, and
in a few minutes returned withsome horses, upon one
of which they mounted the prisoner they had taken,
and soon after moved of. Before they returned with
the horses the man whom they called Judge Young
went off, and I did not then againsee him any more.”
... Before [...; to examine this statement
it should be remarked that the testimony of this
witness was taken under very singular circum-
stances. It seems, from an examination of the
numerous notices served in this case, that Mr.
Young was first notified that the deposition of
Greenup Nickell would be taken in Carter
county on the 4th of *:::::::: (See H. Doc.
13, pp. 88, 89.) Mr. Young attended, and the
witness was not produced. Mr. McKee then


of Nickell in Rowan county, on the 30th and
31st of October. Mr. Young's attorney was
present to cross-examine, and again the wit.
ness was not produced. (H. Doc. 13, p. 75.)
Mr. Young, on the 26th day of August, had
notice served on Mr. McKee that he would take
the deposition of Thomas W. Green in Mays.
ville, Mason county, on the 14th and 15th days
of November ; and on the 2d day of Novem.
ber Mr. McKee again gave notice that he would
take the deposition of this witness at Morgan
county, on the 13th and 14th of that month,
when it would be impossible, in the very nature
of things, for Young to reach there from Mays.
ville, or go from there to Maysville in time to
take the depositions at the latter place. Had
Nickell known Young personally there would,
perhaps, have been nothing at all peculiar in
the circumstance that his attendance could not
be procured until Young was compelled to be
absent, but it does become somewhat suspi:
cious when taken in connection with the fol.
lowing statement in his testimony:
“Question. Have you seen him since? and if so,
state the circumstances.
“Answer. I don't know whether I have ever seen
him singe or not, but at February court, just previous
to the May election inst, I was in court in the court-
house at Moorehead, and while the court ...
on I heard some one speak out, 'How are you, Judge
Young " I was at once reminded of the same expres-
sion I had heard at Owingsville, and turned to see
who it was. Tom Hayes, who had been a captain in
the rebel artny, was standing near, and Itook him to
be the man, from the voice, who then addressed the
man he called judge Young. I was not acquainted
myself with Judge Young, but when I saw him those
in the court house at Moorehead Î took him tobo
the same I had seen at Owingsville, and believe that
he was the same man. These are the only two times
I have seen Judge Young, if this was him.
Could Young have been present and the
witness been compelled to meet the question
face to face, “Is this the man to whom you
allude?” his anver might have explodeo to
whole testimony, just as Willis Hockado
affidavit was when he was brought face to lao
with Young. But the statement of this.".
ness does not seem to carry the air of truth
upon its face. . It has the limping, uncertain
style of one who is conscious of swearing o 3.
falsehood, who has a general idea of the ou'."
of the lie he is to tell without having fixed .
the minute details. He says, “After they " :
into town there was a pretty general rushing
of the town people, who came up or out to o:
them. Among others who came those N.
certain gentleman came down toward .
was, and up to the men who had me in . o
and close by where I was standing; ho *
pointing his finger in the direction of ** 9W
house, and named the house, but don't | is
remember the name of said house,” &c. . .
does not look like the simple, *:::
language of truth. He carefully forgo the
name of the certain house; cannot me." or
names of any of the crowd wh9," colo ".
out;” and, besides, he is careful to o o
Weils, the only man he recognized “” 'the
far off as not to be able to see or h.
“certain gentlemen who came doo" * had
where he was, and up to the men o was
him in charge, and close by wher. i. fea:
standing.” Superadded to those sus o
tures, this witness is proved by Judge o o
a lawyer of Washington city and * wing
dent of Kentucky, who testifies to b8 nty
known him well while he, Moore, ** ...;
judge in Kentucky, to be a man of o
bad character, and utterly unworthy ct à5
on oath; and besides all this, such o i. ii.
the testimony of this witness would .
cation, attribute to Mr. Young is us”. i. Wąs,
sistent with his whole course during, o
Why was not this man Nickell po
examined by Mr. McKee when * WaS
or his attorney could be present?," i be
- the cou
the matter so managed by him thos." itness!
sure of an ex parte examination of his * at he
Is it an unjust conclusion to asso". or to
jeared the result of a crosso. in-
have his facile witness confronted by." an
tended victim? If there had been *...
proper examination of this scamp o'

gave notice that he would take the deposition

would have no doubt, developed anoth" *

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]
« ForrigeFortsett »