% 
 
 VTLC-U ^-UCL l X-XXy . 
 
 iyyu two S,M^-c«-^. j^f-vu-txAx/ 
 1875, 
 
L)l3SS 1^ :»^ (i- v_ 
 
 Book .Sal 
 
r9 
 
 i.ouisiA.isr-^v. 
 
 SPEECH • --S— :, 
 
 OF 
 
 HON. AARON A. SARGENT, 
 
 OF CALIFORNIA, 
 
 Senate of the United States, 
 
 FEBRUARY 15, 16, AND 17, 1875 
 
 WASHINGTON: * 
 
 GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 
 1875. 
 

^f SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 HON. AAEON A. SARGENT. 
 
 Tbe Senate liaviug nndor consideration tlie following resolution submitted by 
 Mr. Morton on the 8tli instant: 
 
 Resolved, That P. B. S. Pinchback be admitted as a Senator from the State of 
 Louisiana fer the term of six j-ears, beginning on the 4th of March, 1873 — 
 
 ]Mr. SARGENT said: 
 
 Mr. President : The resolution before tlie Senate and the action 
 proposed is but one phase of the very many-sided question that comes 
 up to us continually from the South. It would be impossible at 
 the present time to discuss any question relatiug to the political 
 condition of the South without more or less involving considera- 
 tion, with regard to every other. I had jirepared some time since, 
 its is known to the Senate, some observations with reference to 
 the general condition of Louisiana, some considerations upon the 
 employment of military force in Louisiana to put down insurrection, 
 and upon the circumstances which happened when an attempt was 
 made by fraud and bj' force to seize the lower house of the Legisla- 
 ture of Louisiana and subvert the existing State government. I did 
 not have an opportunity to make those remarks, not through the fault 
 of the Senate, but through my own illness ; and now at the earliest 
 ^iportuuity, when this subject is properly before the Senate, I de- 
 sire to make the observations upon that branch of the subject which 
 I should have made at that earlier day. 
 
 I am very well aware that if ejiithets and catch-words would con- 
 vince the Senate and annihilate the republican party, such debates 
 as this would have terminated long since and all these questions 
 would have been disposed of. We have been assured over and over 
 again by democratic Senators that the President has been guilty of 
 usurpation ; that the republican party are trying to subvert the lib- 
 erties of the State of Louisiana and to destroy the rights of a people ; 
 that the peoi>le of New Orleans are patriotically struggling for their 
 rights and liberties. This is the tone which is assumed by Senators 
 and by the democratic press of the North and South in the mock ap- 
 peals which they make to Congress and to the North. Such talk is 
 not new in this Hall. Such utterances in this Hall and out of it 
 hailed the outbreak of the rebellion and accompaied it step by step 
 throughout its progress. Such talk is not new in Louisiana, of a 
 crushed people, of people struggling for their liberties in resistance 
 to a central despotism. Here is the way that Governor Moore, the 
 governor of that State in IStil, talked to the truly loyal people there : 
 
 The Government at "Washington — 
 
 He said — 
 
 maddened by defeat and the successful maintenance by our patriotic people of 
 theu' liberties aiul rights against its usurpation in the harbor of Charleston, has 
 
now thrown off the mask, and sustained by the people of the non-slaveholding 
 States is actually engajred in levying war, by sea and laud, to subvert yoiu- liber- 
 ties, destroy your rights, and shed your blood on your own soil. 
 
 That is the language which we hear now ; tliat we are subverting 
 the rights of a people; that we are guilty of usurpation; that the' 
 Administration is maddened by political defeat, and is endeavoring 
 to overthrow the government of Louisiana. The air has been tilled 
 with such declarations, and it is filled with them now. 
 
 A short time ago the State of Missouri sent to the Senate its utter- 
 ances and conclusions with reg-ard to the i)rogress of things in Louisi- 
 ana, and it said : The acts of the Government in Louisiana are — 
 
 An outrage upon a helpless peo]ile, calculated to insult and bring into public 
 odium the gallant Army of the United States, intended for nobler purposes than 
 that of upholding an effete local usurpation. 
 
 When I heard that resolution read to the Senate, containing very 
 much more of the same character as the slight extract from it which 
 I quote, I was reminded of the charges brought against President Lin- 
 coln in 1861 by this same Legislature — charges nearly identical with 
 those which they now fulminate against the present President of the 
 United States. That Legislature tlien said that Lincoln had acted 
 "in avowed defiance of the Constitution of the United States ;" that 
 he was exercising " usurped power ; " that he was making " an unholy 
 attempt to reduce a free people into subjection to him," &c. I cer- 
 tainly am right in saying that the declarations which we hear now 
 on this floor and by the democratic press of the country, and which 
 come up from Louisiana, are simply the echoes of the old cry which 
 in 1861 hailed and stimulated the rebellion. They mean exactly the 
 same thing now that they meant then, and they are as false to-day as 
 they were false then. 
 
 I think the cluqucnt Senator from Missouri [Mr. ScnuEZ] cannot en- 
 joy the acclaim of the enthusiastic members of the party in the rotunda 
 of the hall of the Legislature of Missouri, which recently elected his 
 successor to this body. I would not be unkind in directing attention 
 to the political history of Missouri a few years past, when by the theji 
 apparent efiect of the political action of the Senator from Missouri 
 there was a ti-ain of circumstances set in motion which led inevitably 
 to the election of Cockrell, or some other confederate general, or a 
 man wholly sympathizing with those ideas. I suppose the Senator 
 from Missouri then, in spite of the plain pointing out which was made 
 to him of the result of the action which he then took, did not believe 
 that that action would result as it has resulted. How has it resulted ? 
 In sending a man diametrically opposed to the principles which he 
 then professed. How was the election of his successor hailed by the 
 men he has been encouraging to destroy him and his party ? The 
 Saint Louis Journal says : 
 
 There was great rejoicing among Cockrell's friends over his election. The 
 scene in the rotunda beggared description. The great mass of humanity surged to 
 and fro, some cheering madly, others hooting and cursing, and all excited to the 
 highest possible pitch. The rebel element here manifested itself piominently. 
 "By G — d, we've beat 'em at last !" "Yes, d — n 'em! the gray has scooped the 
 blue this time! 'Mebbe we haint just crawled out of the brush!" " Whoop 'er 
 lip boys, and see how old Grant likes the rebel yell this time !" These were the 
 cries that resounded through the halls of the old capitol building. 
 
 I do not believe that those cries were any more grateful to the 
 ears of the Senator from Missouri [Mr. SCHURZ] than they would be 
 to mine ; but I do insist that the course of many men who a few 
 years ago were trusted by the republicjin party who were in full f<d- 
 iowship with it, and who deserted that paj'ty or denied its priu- 
 
ci|)los, lias lull, l(i,<;u'.il]y aiul iieicssariiy, to siu'li a consumuiatiou as 
 tliat uitiicsscd iu Missouri. 
 
 Now, sir, Ave have also learuerl from democratic Senators tlieir ideas 
 of constitutional law. We liave violated, they say, the sacred Con- 
 stitution, and so has the President, in Louisiana, and hours of melan- 
 choly jeremiads have heen uttered over that desecrated instrument. 
 Not a democratic speech has heeu made by a Seuiitor in this Hall 
 where he has not been luminous, ay volirminous, upon constitutional 
 power. I impeach the law of these orators. I deny that they under- 
 stand or have ever understood the Constitution of this country. 
 They have been expoundinjf the Constitution of the country for the 
 past fifteen years, and as constitutional expounders they have been 
 lamentable failures. Not learning- by ridiculous failures, they keep 
 up that pretense of oracular constitutional Avisdom, as if the country 
 and the Senate could not understand the obliquity and perverseness 
 of their interpretations. 
 
 I wish to refresh the recollection of the Senate by ciUno- a few of 
 the mooted ]>oints upon which democratic authorities have been found 
 at fault and ] epudiated ; and then we can discover how much faith 
 to put iu such constitutional expounders, and the value of their 
 assumption that such wisdom begins with them and will die Avith 
 them. I will not go back to the precedent at New Orleans, where 
 Jackson dispersed a Legislature, closed a court, and exiled a judge, for 
 the democracy that insi>ircd that act was a purer article than any we 
 have recently seen ; and Jackson declared that "the Union must and 
 shall be preserved." I will not go back to the dispersion of a Legisla- 
 ture in Kansas by United States troops on the order of a democratic 
 President, because that was a territorial Legislature, and all demo- 
 cratic authority, constitutional and otherwise, told us that Territories 
 had no rights against the interests of slavery. I propose to come at 
 once to some of the scenes in which we were all actors, when the 
 heaviest responsibilities rested on every coiiscience, when party intei"- 
 ests were forbidden by patriotism to be weighed against the nation's 
 life, and those who spoke for the democracy were recreant to the high- 
 est trusts or else gave their best exposition of constitutional law. 
 
 On the 4th of December, 18(30, South Carolina having seceded and 
 other States preparing to follow its example, a grave constitutional 
 question arose as to the power of the General Government to coerce 
 a State. It was a f mulamental question : Was there constitutional 
 power in the hands of the General Government to coerce a State ? 
 James Buchanan, a democratic President, devoted, like the democracy 
 of to-day, to constitutional law and the Constitution, sent his last 
 annual message to Congress, and, like the democratic lawyers and 
 democratic Senators at the present day, he discussed the question 
 whether there was any constitutional power on the part of the Gov- 
 ernment of the United States to iirotect itseK from sheer rebellion. 
 He said : 
 
 The question, fairly stated, is: Has the Constitution deleg.ited to Congress the 
 power to coerce a State into subinission which is attempting to withdraw or has 
 actually withdiawn from the confederacy I If answered iu the afliriuativo, it must 
 be on the principle that the power has been conferred upon Congress to declare 
 and to make war against a State. After much serious reflection I have arrived at 
 the conclusion that no such power has been delegated to Congress nor to any other 
 department of the Federal Government. 
 
 In the light of recent events, of all that has happened since, of the 
 great wave of civil war that has rolled over the countrj', of the suli- 
 Jugation of the South, the emancipation of the slaves, and all the 
 great events of the past fifteen years, how puerile seems this reason- 
 
6 
 
 ing, this constitutioualespositiou of tlie last democratic President of 
 the United States. He goes on : 
 
 It is manifest upon an inspection of the Constitution that this is not among the 
 specific and cnumeiated powers granted to Congress, and it is equally apparent that 
 its exercise is not " necessary and proper for carrying into execution" any one of 
 these powers. 
 
 It may be necessary and proper in order that the Government may 
 even exist, as the Constitution dechires tliat the Government may 
 exist, but that which I have quoted was democratic constitutional 
 exposition ! He continues : 
 
 So far from this power having heen delegated to Congress, it was expressly re- 
 fused by the convention which framed the Constitution. 
 
 He summed up : 
 
 "Without descending to particulars, it may he safely asserted that the power to 
 make war against a State is at variance with the whole spirit and intent of the 
 Constitution. 
 
 I do not cite this to argue against it ; I cite it because its absurd- 
 ity as a constitutional exposition is so great, that a mere statement 
 that such was taken as democratic constitutional law in 1861 is suf- 
 ficient to show the unsoundness of democratic constitutional logic. 
 But let us look further. Jeremiah S. Black was the Attorney-Gen- 
 eral of the United States at that time under this democratic admin- 
 istration. He was the one who was principally relied upon to furnish 
 the law to the administration and passnpou constitutional questions. 
 This great liglit of constitutional law, selected for his capacity in that 
 respect, wrote a letter to Mr. Buchanan just before this message, an 
 extract fi'om which I have read, wherein he advances the same idea. 
 He said : 
 
 If it be true that war cannot be declared — 
 
 After having gone on to show that it could not — 
 
 nor a system of geneial hostilities carried on by the central Government against 
 a State, then it sci ms to follow that an attempt to do so would be ipso facto an ex- 
 pulsion of sucli State liom the Uninu. Being treated as an alien and an enemy, 
 she would be cunijirlK-d to act accordingly. And if Congress shall break up the 
 presi'ut I'ui<in liy unconstitutionally jiuttiug .strife and enmity and armed hostility 
 bc'twecn ditfercnt scitioiis of the country, instrad of the "d6me.stic traii(;uillity " 
 wliicli theConstitution was meant to insure, will not all the States be absolved from 
 their Federal obligations ? Is any portiou of the people bound to contribute their 
 money or their blood to carry on a contest like that ? 
 
 I cite these to call attention to how kindly and readily these emi- 
 nent democratic constitutional expounders gave away the legal life 
 tif the nation, the right of the nation to live, and construed the Con- 
 stitution into a mere rope of sand. South Carolina had seceded 
 three days before this message of Mr. Buchanan. "Anti-coercion" 
 was the democratic party cry all over the North. The lirst victory 
 which the republican party succeeded in gaining in the rebellion 
 was in establishing the principle of coercion. I myself, and I have 
 no doubt that other republican Senators on this floor, repeatedly met 
 npon the stump and elsewhere the assertion made by democratic ora- 
 tors that there was no power to coerce a State, and we had as the 
 very first step in our progress toward putting down the rebellion 
 to maintain the constitutional right of the Government to coerce a 
 rebellious State. 
 
 Let us come down a little further, for these reminiscences are valu- 
 able as .showing to wh.at tribunes this constitutional tpu'stion is re- 
 ferred by the democratic party. 
 
 On April 15, 1861, Lincoln issued a proclamati<ni for seventy-five 
 thousand men. The democratic party leaders at once saw how un- 
 
constitutioual that was. The day before Major Amlersou bad marcbed 
 out of Siuuter after defending it for thirty-four hours. Governor 
 Jackson condensed the speeches of a great many democratic lawyers 
 in his reply to the President's requisition. The governor was the 
 chief magistrate of the State of Missouri, which now holds the same 
 language with regard to Louisiana. The governor said in reply to 
 Mr. Lmcoln when he called upon him for the quota of troops from 
 that State : 
 
 Tour request is illefral, unconstitutional, revolutionary, iuhmnan, diabolical, and 
 caiinot be complied Tvith. 
 
 The substauce of a great many democratic speeches and a great 
 many democratic editorials is contained in these two lines, as they 
 were made at that time. I do not know but that some of the demo- 
 cratic Senators who are about me used just such language with refer- 
 ence to the eftbrts of President Lincoln to assemble a military force 
 to put down the rebellion ; but one thing I do know as within my fre- 
 quent observation, that just such objections, just such jjoiuts of con- 
 stitutional law we had to meet continually in order to sustain the 
 Government. 
 
 There came a time when the North began to be somewhat tired ; 
 tbere was not ready volunteering and scarcely any at all ; our armies 
 w'ere perishing in the tield and needed new life-blood which could 
 only be procured by means of conscription ; and at the very time 
 when, to use the language of an eminent man, the rebels were robbing 
 the cradle and the grave to fill up their army, our armies were perish- 
 ing for want of the supply of new men. A xiropositiou was passed 
 through Congress for a conscription law. Eecruiting was dull and 
 the armies must be filled up. Then there were anti-draft meetings 
 in the city of New York larger than the meeting recently assembled 
 at the Cooper Institute to protest against the proceedings of the 
 Administration in Louisiana, and they were as violent in their lan- 
 guage and thej^ saw just as much unconstitutionality in the idea that 
 the Government had any right to draft citizens into the Army as 
 recently at the Cooper Institute or the Manhattan Club they did in 
 the course of the Administration toward insurrectionary Louisiana. 
 
 In Pennsylvania there was the case of William F. Nichols, who 
 brought a bill in equity to restrain proceedings under the enroll- 
 ment law or the tlrafting of citizens into the Army, The supreme 
 court of that State was democratic by one majority ; the casting vote 
 was given by Mr. Woodward, formerly of the House of Kepresenta- 
 tives, very well known I presume to every member of this body ; 
 and the law was held unconstitutional and the injunction was granted. 
 I want to call attention to this eminent democratic authority at that 
 time. Subsequently the decision was reversed; fortunately there 
 was a change in the bench by death or by election by the people. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT. A new election. 
 
 Mr. SAKGENT. There was a new election by which the people 
 redeemed the supreme court, and thus a most disastrous conflict 
 between the Government of the United States and the State of Penn- 
 sylvania was averted, and the new court held as any one now would 
 hold from the logic of past events and the floods of light which have 
 been cast by our courts on this proiiosition in various proceedings, 
 that the law was strictly constitutional. I want to read an extract 
 fiom the oiiinion of Judge W^oodward, given at that time, who was 
 the majority of one on the supreme bench. Mr. Woodward from 
 1865 for several years represented Pennsylvania in the other House 
 of Congress. He said : 
 
 The great vice of the conscript law is that it is founded on an assumption that 
 
8 
 
 Congress may take away, not the State rights of the citizen, but the security and 
 foundation of his State rights. And how long is ci^^l liberty expected to last after 
 the securities of ci-s-il liberty arc destroyed ? The Constitution ot the United States 
 committed the liberties of the citizen in part to the Federal Government, but ex- 
 
 ?ressly reserved to the States and the people of the States all it did not delegate. 
 t gave the General Government a standing Army, but left to the States their mili- 
 tia. Its purposes in all this balancing of powers were wise and good ; but this 
 legislation disregards these distinctions and upturns the whole system of govern- 
 ment when it converts the State militia into " national forces," and claims to use 
 and govern them as such. 
 
 Ou sncli reasoning it was held that the GoA^ernment of the United 
 States had no right to reqiiire and enforce the presence of one of its 
 citizens in the Army of the United States. At the very time when 
 the nation was about to be inevitably destroyed, forever severed, and 
 with all the evil consequences which would flow fi'om a division i)re- 
 cipitated both upon the North and the South, this decision was made 
 on these constitutional grounds, which have, I say, become puerile in 
 the light of recent events ; but this is high democratic authority. 
 
 Then there came the question of emancij)ation as a war measure, 
 so declared in the proclamation of Mr. Lincoln. Vattel and all other 
 writers on international law had clearly shown that a civil war of 
 vast proportions stands ou the same footing as a war between na- 
 tions, and that the right exists to weaken an adversary nation by 
 seizing or destroying its property or freeing its slaves ; but demo- 
 cratic Senators and lawyers were never tired of exjilainiug how un- 
 constitutional was emancipation, no right existing under the Consti- 
 tution or growing out of the Constitution, and no right by the war 
 power, no right by the example of nations through all time, no right 
 no matter how clearly laid down by Grotius, Vattel, Puffendorf, and 
 all writers on international law, but nevertheless the Government 
 was bound hand and foot, and could not avail itself constitutionally 
 of the most ordinary j)ower which is exercised by every nation which 
 goes to war with another or even with a formidable insurrection 
 among its own subjects. I need not quote democratic denunciation 
 of this policy of the Government. It is too familiar to every one. I 
 liass to another proposition. 
 
 After we had shown that we could and would emancipate, they said 
 " but you cannot arm the slaves ; " and they resisted all our eftbrts, 
 resisted by all-night-long sessions in the other House and I do not 
 know how long sessions here, every proposition which looked toward 
 the arming of slaves, the taking of this freed element of manhood 
 and putting in his hands the means to defend its liberty and protect 
 the Union which had given it that liberty. I want to show by a 
 very brief extract just what was thought by these constitutional ex- 
 pounders on that proposition. I have here a number of extracts 
 from democratic speeches, but I will quote only from one, from Mr. 
 Crittenileu — if not nominally a democrat, talking in the same vein — 
 a representative of the State of Kentucky eminent for his public 
 services, but who seemed to become chilled in his feelings toward 
 the success of the war for the Union when its logic seemed to be 
 Inevitable that the blacks must be freed and next that they might 
 be used for the purpose of filling up the Union Army. He said with 
 reference to this proposition : 
 
 It is a crime against the civilization of the age — 
 
 I have no doubt that this worthy old man had visions of horrors 
 at the idea that arms could be ])ut in the hands of the slaves ; he 
 feared excesses on tlieir part ; but I am glad that the i-esult never 
 
9 
 
 .justified these disiual apprelieusions. I do not cite that remark of 
 his even as reflecting upon his judgnicut. But he goes on to say : 
 
 It is a crime against the Coustitutiou. 
 
 Here we have again an exposition of the Constitution. 
 
 It is an act of hostility against tlie Union. These are the sentiments with which 
 I am compelled to regard tliis measure. 
 I say it is a crime against the Constitution. 
 
 Like every other proposition intended to streugtlten the national 
 arm, it was necessarily a criine against the Constitution ! But with 
 measures which were not exactly warlike in their character as re- 
 garding the finances, there was the same democratic impenetrability 
 to a proper construction of the Constitution of tlie United States. I 
 say confidently a proper construction of the Constitution of the 
 United States, because in this matter the Supreme Court of the United 
 States have distinctly decided that the legal-tender acts, as they were 
 called, were entirely constitutional ; and democratic lawyers, I sup- 
 pose, Avith a decision like that upon tlieir tables, must admit tlie con- 
 stitutionality of those provisions which were made in order to give 
 us the life-blood in that great struggle. But I want to call atten- 
 tion to the position of the democratic party on that matter. The 
 Government could not sustain its credit by the issue of notes that 
 were not legal-tenders, or could not bring within its vaults by any 
 means sttfficient gold to pay its current expenses and enable the peo- 
 ple to pay their taxes and pay off oitr Armies from month to month ; 
 and so resort was had to legal-tender notes. This issue was opposed 
 on the premise that it was entirely unconstitutional. I have here the 
 remarks of the Senator from Delaware, the father of the Senator who 
 now holds that seat, [Mr. Bayard,] which I give as an illustration of 
 the position which was taken by the democratic party at tliat time on 
 this floor and in the House of Representatives and by their press 
 generally. 
 
 He said : 
 
 I shall, however, pass over the constitutional argument. I really do not think, 
 from anything I ever heard on the subject, that is worth an argument. The thing 
 is to my mind so palpable a violation of the Federal Coustitutiou that I doubt 
 whether in any court of justice in this country, having a decent legard to its own 
 respectability, yon can possibly expect that this bill which you now pass will not, 
 whenever the question is presented judicially, receive its condemnation as uncon- 
 stitutional and void in this clause. 
 
 To show that this anticipation of the Senator from Delaware and 
 his democratic associates of the action of the courts of justice on this 
 proposition was entirely incorrect, that they were in error then as 
 they always are on constitutional points, I desire to call attention to 
 the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States upon the 
 question. A very brief extract will suflice for this purpose. The 
 Supreme Court, in the legal-tender decision made in 1871, said: 
 
 "We are not aware of anything else which has been advanced in support of the 
 proposition that the legal-tender acts wore forbidden by either the letter or the 
 spirit of the Constitution. If. therefoio, they were w'hat we have endeavored to 
 show, appropriate means for legitimate ends, they were not trausgressive of the 
 authority vested in Congress. 
 
 And again they say : 
 
 But, without extending our remarks further, it will be seen that we hold the 
 acts of Congress constitutional as applied to contracts made either before or after 
 their passage. 
 
 There were other propositions wherein democratic lawyers became 
 extensively learned \Aith regard to their constitutionality. In Decem- 
 ber, 1862, the House of Representatives passed a bill to indemnify the 
 
10 
 
 President and other persons for suspending the writ of habeas rorjjKs, _ 
 and it passed both Houses finally. There -was a necessity for it, be- 
 cause rebel emissaries were plotting mischief, seeking to carry out 
 the pledges of the democratic leaders to aid the rebellion. This act 
 was held constitutional by the supreme court of New York in the 
 case of George W. Jones rs. William H. Seward, and was held consti- 
 tutional wherever it was brought to the attention of courts. But our 
 democratic constitution-expounders had hastily before that, contem- 
 poraneously with its passage, shown their care for and knowledge of 
 the Constitution. There was a protest made by thirty-six democratic 
 members of the House against tlie passage of the measure, putting it 
 upon high constitntional grounds. Among those iiienibers who thus pro-- 
 tested and showed their knowledge uf the Constitution of the United 
 States were George H. Pendleton, Clement L. Vallandigham, Samuel 
 Sullivan Cox, Charles A. Wicklitte, Daniel W. Voorhees, and many 
 others whom I might name. They recite: 
 
 On the 8th day of December, A. D. 1862, and during the present session of Con- 
 gress, Mr. Stevens, of Peinisylvnnin. introduced tlie l)ill No. 591, entitled "An act 
 to indemnify tlio I'residciit and otiici- jicisdns for susiniiding the jirivilege of the 
 writ of habeas cor-pus, and acts done in jnirsuancc thereof," and after its second 
 reading moved that its consideration ha made tlie siiecial order for tlie Thursday 
 then next ensuing ; jwhich motion being objected to, he moved the previous ques- 
 |ion : and this being sustained, under the operation thereof the bill was read a 
 hird time, and passed. 
 
 They go on and give various reasons for protesting, of which this 
 is the third : 
 
 Because it purports to confirm and make valid, by act of Congress, arrests and 
 imprisonment which were not only not warranted by "the Cimstitution of the United 
 States, but were in palpable violation of its express prohibitions. 
 
 Unfortunately for these protestants the courts, as soon as they had 
 opportunity to pass upon the matter, held that the law was strictly 
 constitutional. But that did not diminish the confidence of these 
 orators, and they kept on trying to show their knowledge of the 
 Constitution, though no court agreed with them. The fact that the 
 Supreme Court of the United States differed with them did not abash 
 them for a moment in the confidence with which they then approached 
 and now approach such questions. Mr. Pendleton, whose name I 
 read, made a speech on the subject, in which he used this language, on 
 the 3d of March, 1863 : 
 
 Martial law ! The war power ! Military necessity ! As these terms are used, 
 to-day they have no lawful existence among us. Tliey abrogate and destroy the 
 Constitution. They violate the whole of it in letter aiid spirit in order that'they 
 may compel obedi.-iice t<i jiart. They are the de^-ices of fanaticism ; .its flimsy pre- 
 texts under which power rmieeals its aggressions, the .specious names underwliich. 
 cowardice seems to skulk from observation while it gratifies its malignant rage. 
 
 This was said in the midst of the civil war, when the Government 
 was struggling by the tension of every nerve to save the coun- 
 try. This language, heated as it is, is however scarcely more so than 
 we have heard recently from democratic orators and Constitution ex- 
 poun<lers Avith regard to matters in Louisiana. He goes on ; it sounds 
 almost recent and fresh : 
 
 They are the inventions of <lespotic power distorted from their original purpose 
 by a party distivss.-d and lialiledShv the liuiiiiliations of a w.ar which it had not the 
 virtue to prevent and has not the ability to mauasie ; the in.snfbcicnt cloak with 
 which it seeks to cover as it were with tli'e mantle of constitutionality the eftbrts 
 of despairing and impotent wrath. Powers thus usurped will have buta brief and 
 profitless day. They depend npon force. It is lawful to resist them by force. It 
 may become wisdom and patriotism to resist them by superior force. After much 
 long suffering " resistance to tyrants is obedience to God."' 
 
11 
 
 I do not know but tliat it is well sometimes to turn over tlie musty 
 volumes of the Globe to find the tire that is smouldering within their 
 leaves, to hud out how men's passions were excited a few years ago 
 against the Government, on what pretexts they then acted, under 
 ■what pretenses of regard for the Constitution, pretenses brought for- 
 ward at the very moment when action was required, to cause delay 
 and to jirotest against it — tactics which exist to this very day. 
 
 There were other propositions. There was an exclusion of papers 
 from the mails. The New York News, published by Ben. Wood, rang 
 with incendiary appeals for bloody resistance to the Government in 
 the North. Major-General Wallace suppressed the Baltimore Even- 
 ing Transcript. General Rosecrans forbade the circulation of the 
 Metropolitan Record in the Department of the Missouri. And there 
 ■were other papers which were forbiddeu to be transported through 
 the mails. The ol)ject was to prevent hostile printed matter from 
 reaching the enemy and to prevent such matter from instigating 
 others to co-operate with the enemy by the aid of the United States. 
 mails. The question was presented, was there constitutional power 
 on the part of the Government of the United States to prevent these 
 incendiary communications from passing through the mails. Caleb 
 Gushing, Pierce's Attorney-General, Caleb Gushing— strong in the con- 
 fidence of the democratic party, a great constitutional lawyer, a light 
 for them and Franklin Pierce, President of the United States — a demo- 
 crat, a lawyer, a constitution expounder, had discussed the matter, 
 and Gushing decided as an administration measure that incendiary 
 matter even in time of peace could be excluded from the mails. I 
 ask the Clerk to relieve me by reading what I have marked in the 
 book which I send to the desk. I desire to show how far democracy 
 can construe the Constitution in favor of slavery, and then I shall 
 show how far it can construe its clauses against liberty and national 
 existence, when the same measure is involved. 
 
 The Chief Clerk read as follows : 
 
 Attokxey-Genekal's Office, 
 
 March 2, 1857. 
 * * * ■VTitli these premises -we have the main question very much simplified. It 
 is tliis : Has a citizen of one of the Uuiti'il Statt-.s pk-uarv iuflisputalih' iii;ht to 
 employ the functions and the officers of the Uninn us the means of eiuibliun him to 
 produce insurrection in another of the Ignited States ? Can the ottieeis of the 
 Union lawfully lend its functions to the citizens of one of the States for the pur- 
 pose of iirimiotini; insnirectinu in anotluT State? 
 
 Taking the last of these (luestnins tiist, it is obvious to say that, inasmuch as It 
 is the constitutional obliuatidu (if the United States to protect each of the States 
 against "domestic violence," and to make provision to " suppress insuncctions," it 
 cannot be the right of the Unitctl States, or of any of its officers, and, of course, it 
 cannot be their duty, to ]iromotB, or be the instrument of promoting, insurrection 
 in any part of the United States. 
 
 As to the first question, likewise, it seems obvious to say, that, as insurrection in 
 any one of the States is violation of law, not only as regards that State itself, but 
 also as regards the United States, therefore no citizen of the Union can lawfully 
 incite insurrection in any one of the States. * * * It would be preposterous to 
 suppose that any citizen of the United States has lawful right to do tliat which he 
 is bound by law to prevent when attempted by any and all others ; and monstrous, 
 to pretend that a citizen of one of the States has a moral right to promote or com- 
 mit insurrection or domestic violence, that is, robbery, bui-glary, arson, rape, and 
 murder, by wholesale, in another of the States. 
 
 These considerations, it seems to me, are decisive of the question of the tme 
 construction of the act of CongTess. Of tliat it is impossilde for me to doubt. Its 
 enactment is, that " If any postmaster shall unlawfully detain," he shall be sub- 
 ject to fine, imprisonment, and disqualification. Then, if the thing be of lawful 
 delivery, it cannot he lawfully detained ; while, on the other hand, it cannot be 
 unlawful to detain that wliich it is unlawful to deliver. Such is the plain language 
 and the manifest import of t!ie ai t of Cimgress. 
 
 I do not mean to be understood that the word "unlawfully" of the act deter- 
 
12 
 
 jiiinps tlio rnso: on the coutrary, my concliisiou would be the same, tliongli that 
 word hail imt licin here inserted. By employing it, indeed, the act expressly ad- 
 mits that tliLie may l>e lawful cause of detention. But such lawful cause would 
 not the less exist, although its existence were not thus expiessly recognized. 
 And, of all conceivable causes of detention, there can be none more operative than 
 treasonableness of character, for in every society the pubUe safety is the suprem- 
 est of laws. 
 
 Nay, if, instead of expressly admitting lawful causes of detention, the act had 
 undertaken to exclude them— if, for instance, it had in terms required the post- 
 masters to circulate papers, which, in tendency and purpose, are of character to in- 
 cite insuiTection in any of the States — still my conclusion woiild be the same. I 
 sliould say of such a provision of law, it is a nullity, it is unconstitutional ; not so 
 by reason of conflict with any State law, but because inconsistent with the Consti- 
 tution of tile T'liiti-d States. 
 
 The Constitution forbids insurrection ; it imposes on Congress and the President 
 the i\nty of suppressing insurrection ; this obligation descends through Congi-ess 
 and the President to all the subordinate functionaiies of the Union, civil and 
 military; and any provision of an act of Congress requiring a Federal function- 
 ary to be the ageiit or muiister of insurrection in either of the States would vio- 
 late palpably the positive letter, and defeat one of the primary objects, of the Con- 
 stitution. 
 
 These, my conclusions, apply only to news]>apers, pamphlets, or other printed 
 matter, the character of wliicli is of public notoriety, or is necessarily brought to 
 the kuowh'dgf of tiie postmaster by publicity of transmission through the mails 
 unsealed, and as to the natiu-e of which he cannot pk^ad ignorance. 
 
 Mr. SARGENT. On the next pao-e the Clerk will find marked a 
 letter from Jefiterson Davis in which he commends this doctrine of 
 exclnsion from the mails of printed matter in the interest of slavery 
 as eminently proper and worthy of a State-rights administration ; and 
 I shonld like to show how that eminent constitutional democratic 
 expotiuder, Jetferson Davis, looked upon this power of wliich the 
 democrats snbsequeutly found it convenient to deny the constitti- 
 tionality. 
 
 The Chief Clerk read as follows : 
 
 ■Washixgtox, January 4, 1853. 
 
 Gentlejiex : "When I last addressed you in answer to yoiu- letter communicating 
 the views anil feeliugs of the citizens of Tazoo City, in relation to the circulation 
 of incendiary matti-r through the mails of the United States, I promised that you 
 should hear from me further, and gave you assurance of such action by the last 
 administration as would be satisfactory to you. 
 
 I have thus lonu dehiyed the iiiouiIsimI communication in expectation of receiv- 
 ing the oiiiniou of the Atto7-ni'v-( ii-ui'ial u]i(iu tlie legal meritsof thecase. the ques- 
 tion liaviug been rrfeiTeil to lilui liy the I'listmaster-deuei-al. Hon. Jami'sCamiibell. 
 
 The Attoru('y-( Jcneral, in the opinion imioseil, sustains tlir couchisiiui of the 
 President and the Postmaster-tJeiU'ral, aiul so satisfartorily disposes of tlie ques- 
 tion at issue tliat I liope tliat we shall bo saved from any furtlier agitation of it. 
 
 Concuiiing fully with you in your opinion of the powers of a State, the duty of 
 its citizens, ami the obligation of our community in such contingency as that 
 presented by the case reported in your letter, I trust we shall also agree that the 
 matter has been concluded in a manner worthy of the State-rights administration 
 under which it arose. 
 
 With great regard, I am your fiiend and fellow-citizen, 
 
 JEFFERSON DAVIS. 
 
 To Messrs. IJohert Bowman, Geoieoe B. "Wilkinson, and A. M. Haulow, 
 Committee, Yazoo City. 
 
 Mr. SARGENT. I do not know that it is worth while to quote 
 much democratic authority to the point that it was unconstitutional 
 to exclude papers rife with rebellious suggestions — provocative of 
 insuiTection — from the mails. I will simply quote as a specimen a 
 few remarks of Mr. Pendleton, of whom there are not entirely un- 
 likely signs tliat he may be the next democratic nominee for I'resi- 
 dent'of the United State's, showing that democratic exposition of the 
 Constitution are matters which change with every whim of passion — 
 that they have no stability wliatever. In 18(53 Mr. Pendleton made 
 a speech in the House of Representatives referring to this very quea- 
 
13 
 
 tiou of the exclusion of ac'\v.spii})i'r.sfrom tlie mails — iiowspapors loiuUid 
 "with treason, newspapers calculated to excite passion and insurrec- 
 tion — and speaking for liis party with its record on the subject he 
 held that all this was entirely unconstitutional. He said : 
 
 Thus far my avgumeiit liaa been founded on the considerations suggested by the 
 report of the committee and on tlie absence of any law conferring the power in 
 question on the Pdstina.stcr-Oeneral. ISut my conclusions do not rest upon this 
 alone. The argument rises to a liigher dignity. It involves express provisions of 
 the Constitution and ])vinci])les of constitutional liberty. 
 
 " Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speecli or of tlie press." 
 This is the first article of the amendments of the Constitution. 
 
 Then he goes on to elaborate upon that idea. So that I soy that 
 they wrest the Constitution according to the exigencies of the mo- 
 ment ; that they are nnsafe, time-serving constitutional expounders. 
 But why descend to particulars ? The democratic national conven- 
 tion in 1864 condensed and embodied the contitutional lore of the 
 jjarty, and by one expasition showed that by this and by all the war 
 measures the Constitution had been violated in every particular. 
 They resolved as follows : 
 
 Hesolved, That this convention does explicitly declare, as the sense of tlie Amer- 
 ican people, that after four years of failure to lestore tlie Union by the experiment 
 of war, during which, under iiietcusc of military neces.sity or war power higher 
 than the Constitution, tlie Constitution has been disregarded in every part, anil 
 public libertv and private ii;;bts liavt- liecii alike ti-oddt-n down, and tlie material 
 prosperity ot the country essentially im]iaiic(l. justice, humanity, libeity. and the 
 public welfare demand that immediate elt'oits be made for a ci'Ssation of jiostilities, 
 with a view to an ultimate convention of all the States or other xieaceable means, 
 to the end that at the eaiU<st practical moment peace may be restored on the basis 
 of the Federal Union of the States. 
 
 We all know the circumstances attending and inunediately follow- 
 ing the adoption of that resolution. It was a turning point in the 
 history of the war of the rebellion ; it was the point when distress 
 was past, when all failures had ended, when all disappointments had 
 been encountered, when the nation with high heart waslookingfor and 
 now realizing a tiu-n in the tide of fortune that was sweeping (m to the 
 results of the great struggle of the rebellion, and the democratic party 
 came in and announced that the war w^as a failure. But what I want, 
 to call attention to is the fact that they declared that by all of these war 
 measures by which the coimtry was saved the Constitution had been 
 violated in every part. Either by emancipation, by coercion, by 
 financial measures, by every measure of precaution, by every ineas- 
 nre of coercion, we had been acting unconstitutionally from thever*'' 
 fii'st ; and this embodied the concentration, the essence of democratic 
 constitutional learning. 
 
 With these exhibitions of democratic constitutional discretion, I 
 say I impeach their law ; I deny their ability to expound that instru- 
 ment ; and when they denounce in this Chamber the eftbrts of the 
 Government to preserve peace and the forms and substance of law in 
 Louisiana, I hear the old cry against coercion, conscription, and eman- 
 cipation. Senators may be eminent lawyers in assumpsit ; they may 
 and are undoubtedly learned in torts and remedies outside of politics ; 
 but history has recorded their gigantic blunders in construing the 
 Constitution; and I have not, therefore, been surprised to learn from 
 this source that the President has been guilty of violations of the 
 Constitution. A little more exaggeration would say violations of the 
 Constitution in every part. A little more warmth and enthusiasm iier- 
 haps would reproduce their resolution of 1804, and it would create no 
 surprise in my mind, and I doubt if it would in the mind of any who- 
 heard it. I prefer, however, to examine the matter for myself. 
 
14 
 
 Reasoning for myself on the constitiitioual obligations of tlie Presi- 
 dent, I lay it down as a proposition that it is the dnty of the General 
 Government to protect a State against domestic violence ; that this 
 is a constitntional obligation, whether that violence is seated in a gov- 
 ernor's chair or a legislative hall ; whether it is by a disorganized mob 
 or by an organized rebellion. Section 4, article 4, of the Constitntion 
 reads as follows : 
 
 The United States sliall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form 
 of government, and sliall prott^ct each of them against invasion, and on application 
 of the Legislature, or of the executive, (when the Legislature cannot be convened,) 
 against domestic violence. 
 
 There have been two laws passed enforcing this provision of the 
 Constitution. The fij'st, in 1795 is found in the first volume of the 
 Statutes, l)age 424. The first three sections of it are material to the 
 propovsition which I desire to discuss, and I ask the clerks to relieve 
 me by reading them. 
 
 The Chief Clerk read as follows : 
 
 That -whenever the United States shall be invaded, or l>e in imminent danger of 
 invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the Presi- 
 dent of the United States to call forth such number of the militia of the State or 
 States most convenient to the place of danger or scene of action as he may judge 
 necessary to repel such invasion, and to issue his orders for that purpose, to such 
 officer or officers of the militia as he shall think ])ro])er. And in case of an insur- 
 rection in any State, against the governuiiiit tlu'veof, it shall be lawful for the 
 President of tlie United States, on application of the Legislature of such State, or 
 of the executive, (when the Legislature cannot be convened,) to call forth such 
 number of tlie militia of any other State or States as may be applied for, as he may 
 judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection. 
 
 Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That whenever the laws of the United States 
 sliall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed in any State by combinations 
 too poweriful to be suppressed by the ordinaryjcourse of judicial proceedings or by 
 the powers vested in the marshals by this act. it shall be lawful for the President 
 ■of the United States to call foitli tlie militia »i such State or of any other State or 
 States, as may be necessary, to suppress such conibinations, and to cause the laws 
 to be duly executed ; and the use of militia so to be called forth may be continued, 
 if necessary, until the expiration of thii'ty days after the commencement of the 
 then next session of Congress. 
 
 Sec. 3. Provided always, and lieitfin-fher enncted, Thatwhenevcr it may be neces- 
 sary, in the judgment'of the President, to use tlie military force hereby directed to be 
 called forth, the President shall foithwi til by proclamation command sue li insurgents 
 to disperse and retire peaceably to their respective abodes within a limited time. 
 
 Mr. SARGENT. That act was supplemented in 1807 by one of a 
 single section, which was signed l)y Jefferson as President of the 
 United States, when Madison was Secretary of State. It provided: 
 
 That in all cases of insurrection or obstruction to the laws, either of the United 
 States or of any individual Stat(» oi- Territory, where it is lawful forthe President 
 of the United States to call forth tlie militia for the purpose of suiipressing such 
 insun'ection or of causing the laws to be dulj'- executed, it shall be lawful for him 
 to employ for the same purposes such jiart of the land or naval force of the United 
 States as shall be judged necessary, having tirst observed all the prerequisites of 
 the law in that respect. 
 
 Acting under this provision of the Constitution and these statutes, 
 the de facto governor of Lonisiana, when the Legislature could not 
 be convened, called for Federal intervention in September, 1874, 
 against the Adolence of the Penu usurpation. The language of that 
 call was as follows : 
 
 New Ouleaxs, September 14, 1874. 
 To President GU.4.NT, Washington : 
 
 Under article 4, section 4, of the Constitution of the United States, I have the 
 honor to inform you that the State is now subject to domestic violence of a char- 
 acter that the State forces, under existing circumstances, are uiiabU' to supjiress, 
 and, the Legislature not lieing in session and not being able to be convened within 
 the requisite* time to take action in this matter, I respectfully make requisition 
 
15 
 
 r.pon you to take measures to put down the doiui-stic vio.ence aud insurrection 
 now prevailing. 
 
 WM. P. KELLOGG, 
 
 Oovernor of Louisia^ia. 
 
 And again subsequently, on December 9, less than one month before 
 the coup d'etat of Wiltz aud his coconspirators, he telegraphed as fol- 
 lows to President Grant : 
 
 Kew Orleans, December 9, 1874. 
 President Ghaxt, Washingtoii : 
 
 Intorniatiou readies nie thattlie White Leai;ue purpose making an attack upon 
 the Statc-lKiuse, especially that jxirtioii oc<'iipifd by thf. tieasurer of the State. The 
 orgauizatiiiii is very mnnfrniis an<l well ai'mi'd, and thr State forces now a\'ailahle 
 are not surticieut t<i resist siKCcssfnlly any iiiovi'iiiciit tliey may Tnake. With a view 
 of preventing such an attempt, and the bloodshed which' woiihl be lilvely to result 
 should an insur;:ent body aitain take jiossessioii of the State-house and in dispers- 
 ing them, I respectfully request that a detachment of United States trooi)s be 
 stationed in that portion of tlie Saint Louis Hotel which is not used for auy of the 
 State officers, where they will be i-eadily available to prevent any such iirsurrec- 
 tionaiy movement as that contemplated. 
 
 TTM. P. KELLOGG, 
 
 Governor of Louisiana. 
 
 In other words, the Prcsideut was invoked by the State govern- 
 ment, which he l)efore that time had recoguized uiuler his constitu- 
 tional power, to interfere with the Army of the United States, as was 
 provided by the acts of 1807 and 1795, as was contemplated by section 
 4, of article 4 of the Constitution ; and all the conditions beiug stated 
 and as I a.ssert and as cannot bo denied, all the conditions existing, 
 the President of the United States did intervene ami send a military 
 force in September, after issuing a proclamation, and sujipressed the 
 Penn insurrection. The then insurgents have never laid down their 
 arms, and for that reason the Federal intervention continued. The 
 adherents of the Peun revolt w' ho figured in the assemblage of Janu- 
 ary 4 were engaged in further domestic violence to seize a branch 
 of the Legislature, and it was the duty of the United States to protect 
 the State government against them ; which it did. There is hardly 
 com for a diHerence about the facts. 
 
 Paley, a master of moral philosojihy, lays down liberal rules to 
 judge a certain class of misstatements. For instance, he says that 
 falsehoods are not lies where jests are uttered ; or by which au advo- 
 cate asserts the justice or his belief in the justice of the cause of his 
 client ; whei'e he asserts that his client is not guilty; where he has a 
 cause to gain ; where no one is deceived. Falsehoods in these cases he 
 liolds are not lies. Now, apply these extremely liberal rules of Paley, 
 and we can excuse for partisan purposes almost any statement made 
 by our democratic friends with regard to Louisiana ; and there is not 
 a violation of conscience, or in other words no lie is told. If the blacks 
 and the white republicans can vote in Louisiana unobstructed, unin- 
 timidated, the democratic cause is necessarily lost there. Paley says 
 it is not a falsehood provided it is uttered with intent to gain a 
 cause. If the White League are guilty of murdering men all over 
 the State, if they indulge in massacres where many men fall, if they 
 use all repressive means to encroach on the rights of republicans and 
 make Louisiana a hell, according to Paley it is not a falsehood for 
 their defenders to say they are not guilty. Perhaps the broader 
 statement may be made that no one is deceived by these excuses, 
 these palliations, these jokes about outrage-mills, this whistling grave 
 matters down the wiiul, and they are not expected to deceive the 
 Senate at least. It will be fortunate for the people of this country 
 provided they are not deceived, and tmderstand the si^irit in which 
 
16 
 
 these assertions in reference to Louisiana are made by democratic 
 orators. 
 
 I desire to make a candid statement of the facts as I understand 
 them, drawn from official documents, eliminating everything which 
 I believe is disputed by any fair authority. 
 
 The Legislature of Louisiana was to meet on the 4th of January, 
 1875. Public and rejjeated threats of assassination of republican 
 members for weeks before were made, and tliese were repeated and 
 indorsed by the democratic papers of the State. A few days before 
 A. J. Cousins, a republican member of the Legislature, was kidnaped 
 for the purpose of preventing his participation in the organiza- 
 tion of the Legislature, which was very close. He was carried off 
 beyond the lake by the democratic party or its agents engaged in 
 that work, and there kept with the nefarious purpose, by these illegal 
 means, of controlling the organization of that Legislature. A man at 
 that time, I think the day before, resembling a republican member 
 of the Legislature, for his reserablance to that republican member 
 was shot down in the streets of New Orleans. There were threats of 
 kidnaping and assassination of other members, and attempts were 
 made to kidnap other rcjuililican members. Information was given to 
 the governor tliat organized violence was to be used to influence the 
 organization of the house, and this caused liim to put the State-house 
 in charge of the State militia and the police. The State-house, at the 
 time of the assembling of the Legislature, was siuTouuded by an ex- 
 cited crowd of several thousand jjersons. 
 
 Under these surroundings of assassination, kidnaping, threats, 
 and military and police forces, entirely exceptional to our ideas of 
 such assemblies, the Legislature of Louisiana met. By a law of 
 1872, passed by a former Legislature and ai)proved by Warmoth, a 
 returning board was constituted, with power to pass on the election 
 of members and certify a roll to the secretary of state. The return- 
 ing board certified to the secretary of state fifty-two republicans 
 and fifty democrats — one hundred and two in all. The law of Louis- 
 iana relating to the organization of the house iirovides — 
 
 That it shall be the duty of the secretary of state to transmit to the cleric of the 
 house of representatives and the secretary of t)ie senate of the last ( Jcnera! Assem- 
 bly a list of the names of such jjersons as, according to the returns, shall have been 
 elected to either l)iiiiich of the (Jeneral Assemldy ; and it shall be the duty of the 
 said cb'ik an<l secretary to plarctheiiamcs of thiwepresentatives and senators elect 
 so furiiislifd upon the roll of tlic house and of tlu' senate respectively; and those 
 rejucscntativis and si iiatois wluise nauu's are so placed by the clerk and secretary 
 resjiectively, in accordance with the fore^oinii provisions, and none other, shall be 
 ComiK'tent to oiLcaiiize the house of re]in'sentatives or senate. Xothingin this act 
 shall be construed to conflict with article 34 of the constitution of the State. 
 
 Thus the one hundred and two members constituted the roll of the 
 House, who alone were competent to organize it, and this was the roll 
 for all purposes of organization, and Avas the roll to be called on the 
 demand of any two persons named on it. Article 36 of the constitu- 
 tion of Louisiana provides that — 
 
 Each house of the General Assembly shall keep and publish weekly a journal 
 of its proceedings ; and the yeas and nays of the members on any (luestiou, at the 
 desire of any two of them, shall be entered on the .journal. 
 
 The roll being thus made up, and the right to have the yeas and 
 nays being thus secured, the laws of Louisiana provide for a presid- 
 ing officer until the organization is completed, as follows : 
 
 That for the purpose of facilitating tlie organization of their respective bodies, 
 the secretary of the senate and (lie chief clei-k of the Iiouse of rejirescntatives shall 
 hold over and continue in oftice Iroiii one term of the General Assembly to another 
 until their successors are duly elected and qualitied. 
 
The constrnction of these laws is not difficult or devoid of high 
 precedent. The law of the United States provides a roll for the 
 same purpose of organization in tlie other House by the act of March 
 ;3, 186S, now existing and existing for years past, and tlio practice 
 under it gives the construction to be placed on these statutes of Lou- 
 ivsiana. The laws are almost identical — are fully identical in every 
 important point. By the act of March 3, 18G3, the law regarding 
 the creation of a roll of the House of Eepreseutatives is as follows : 
 
 That befi)rc tlio first meeting of tlie next Congress, and of every subsequent 
 Congress, the Ch-rk of the next preeedini; H<ius<> of Keiiresentativcs shall make a 
 roU'of the Kepresentatives-elect, anil jilare tlit-nion the names of all persons, and 
 of snch persons only, whose ci'edentials show that they were regnlarly elected iu 
 accordance with the laws of their States respectively or the laws of the United 
 States. 
 
 As Senators well know, under this law the Cleric makes up the roll, 
 presides until a Speaker is chosen, and always calls the yeas and 
 nays on any demand. Mr. Vigers held over as clei-k iu the Louisiana 
 hotise, and was quietly and fairly proceeding with his duties in call- 
 ing tlie roll to ascertain who were present witii a right to vote, there 
 being in all one hundred and two, when Mr. Billieu, a rejn-esentative 
 from La Fourche, moved to elect a temporary speaker. The clerk re- 
 plied that the legal motion was to elect a speaker. There is no tem- 
 porary Speaker in the House of Congress or by the laws of Louisi- 
 ana, or so far as I know of any State in this Union ; and the clerk 
 unquestionably was right iu stating that the motion was illegal, or 
 rather that the legal motion was to elect a speaker. Billieu paid no 
 attention, however, and hurriedly put his motion against the protest 
 of the republican members, the majority there assembled, and did 
 not put any negative. Wiltz had previously taken a position near 
 tlie clerk's desk, and instantly on the putting of the motion, without 
 waiting for any announcement of the vote and disregarding the irreg- 
 ularity of the proceedings and the protest of the majority, sprang to 
 the speaker's desk, pushed away the clerk, seized the gavel, and de- 
 clared himself temporary speaker. As if an oath could give sanction 
 to this high-handed illegal iJroceeding, a convenient justice of the 
 peace, near the stand for the purpose, pulled out a book looking like 
 a Bible and swore Wiltz into the office of temporary speaker — au 
 office having no existence. Wiltz then pretended to swear in the 
 democratic members eti masse against the protest of the republicans. 
 Some democratic member moved to elect a Mr. Trezevant clerk, 
 which Wiltz declared carried, and Trezevant sprang forward and 
 took the clerk's desk. The republicans protested and called for the 
 yeas and nays, but Wiltz paid no attention to the call. There was a 
 constitutional provision requiring that the presiding officer should 
 do so, but in their eagerness the constitution was disregarded, no 
 attention being given to the call for tlie yeas and nays, none to the 
 provisions of the law or the constitution, A Mr. Flood was elected 
 sergeant-at-arms in the same way with protests and calls for the ayes 
 and noes ; and Colonel Lowell made a point of order that the consti- 
 tution allowed any two members to call the yeas and nays. Wiltz 
 ruled the point of order not well taken. The wildest "confusion 
 reigned in the house, as it well might. As soon as Flood was thus 
 elected sergeant-at-arms, Wiltz ordered a number of assistants to be 
 appointed. Instantly a large number of men throughout the hall 
 turned down the lapels of their coats, upon which were pinned blue- 
 ribbon badges, on which was printed in gold letters "Assistant ser- 
 2 s ■ . 
 
18 
 
 goaiil-iit-ariiis," many of whom were recognized aseaptains of White- 
 League companies in Nev/ Orleans and viciuity. 
 
 Thus the threats of the -white-leaguers were made good and they 
 had possession of the lower house of Louisiana. Tlie republicaus pro- 
 tested against this violence and lawlessness, and began to leave the 
 hall. The democrats then swore in five members not returned by the 
 returning board, and by their help elected Wiltz speaker, he claim- 
 ing to have had 55 votes, the republicans withdrawing and not voting 
 as they deemed the vphole thing illegal. Wiltz then ordered his 
 White-League emissary sergeants-at-arms not to allow any one to 
 enter or leave the hall. The swearing in of these five members by 
 that minority of the body, as I will show when I come to speak of 
 the affairs of Arkansas, was entirely illegal, unknown to any legisla- 
 tive body, gave them no right to their seats, gave them no right to 
 participate in subsequent legislation, no right to assist in the organ- 
 ization, because a minority can only adjourn fi-om day to day, and 
 here was a minority of democrats left in the hall who created them- 
 selves into a majority by this illegal proceeding. Greater commotion 
 at once ensued, knives and pistols were drawn, and bloodshed seemed 
 imminent. Without there was a surging mob of thousands ; within 
 there were high-handed, illegal, unconstitutional proceedings taking 
 place in the midst of a confusion there reigning, with knives and 
 pistols drawn, anarchy and confusion prevailing. Under these cir- 
 cumstances this democratic co«j> cC^tat was accomplished. Wiltz's ob- 
 ject in endeavoring to prevent the republicans from leaving the hall 
 seems to have been to compel the republicaus to remain by force so 
 as to keep a quorum in the hall to help out his arbitrary minority 
 proceedings. To eifect his object on motion of Dnpre, a democrat, a 
 committee was appointed to wait on the United States military offi- 
 cer and request the interference of LTnited States troops. This request 
 was complied wath, and General De Trobriand came on the floor. He 
 was cheered by the democrats, and Wiltz asked his aid ; which was 
 rendered, and peace was restored. 
 
 The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Tiiukman] said that " in the lobby 
 there were fifty or sixty of the worst ruffians of the republican 
 party in the city of New Orleans." Hoav does he know that? Who 
 Avere theyf AVhat were their names? AVhat had they done or 
 either of them ? He objects to Sheridan's phrase " banditti " ajiplied 
 to men described as murderers, described as men who were engaged 
 inmost nefarious outrages which the pen or tongue can depict. He 
 says, "Why stigmatize men as banditti ; the phrase is harsh; Gov- 
 ernment officers ought not to use such language;" and yet he himself 
 speaks of the republicans who w^ere there in the lobby as " the worst 
 ruffians in the city of New Orleans." Let us see. I want to know if 
 they Avere more ruffianly than his own party friends ^^dlo kidnaped 
 Cousins, or more ruffianly than those democrats who shot down an 
 entirely innocent man in the street because he looked like a republi- 
 can member of the Legislature ? But look at the inconsistency of it. 
 He says that a word from De Trobriand stilled these men and silenced 
 fifty of the worst radical ruffians in the city of New Orleans. Either 
 there are no radical ruffians in the city- of New Orleans or the one 
 side or the other of this statement is incorrect. If they were such 
 ruffians, a mere word from the military officer would not have brought 
 peace. If they were not such ruffians, then lie does reckless injustice. 
 
 These acts of Wiltz and his coconspirators, by which the minority 
 usurped the control of the house by force and fraud, by which the 
 minority turned itself into a majority afterward by seating mem- 
 
10 
 
 Lers in violation of all paiiianii u'^ary law, by calling in a United 
 StatevS force to put down a protest against its proceedings and over- 
 awe the majority, were a subversion of a i-epublican form of govern- 
 ment. The essence of republican government is the control of the 
 majority. This was a despotic act of a desperate and rniscrupiilous 
 minority — a coup iVetat. a French institution imperial and autocratic 
 and it cannot and must not thrive on American soil. 
 
 On the written request of the legal majority of tifty-two members 
 the g'overuor called on the United States troops to enable him to re- 
 store order and enable legally retni-ned members to proceed with the 
 organization. That call was as follows : 
 
 ICr.w Okleaxs, Januari/ 4, 1875. 
 HisExcelli'iicylTS'ii.i.iAM P. Kellogg, Goienior: 
 
 Sn{ : The uii(liTsi;iiii'il, member.s-elcct of t!ic house of representativ^es of the Gen- 
 eral Assembly oiM his State, asseiiihled at tlic Iiall of the house, in the state-liouse, at 
 twelve m. thisilay. auil auswi-ii'il tothf rail made by the clerk. Immeiliatdy there- 
 after the chair was foicibl y taken iiosscssiou of, in violatum of law, ami an attfmpt 
 was made to organize the house couti aiv to law. We cannot obtain our lejial rights 
 unless the member.s-elect are idaicd in ]>nsscssion of the hall. Whenever the nail 
 is cleared of all persons save the utntliiuen elected, we will proceed to organize. 
 We therefore invoke your aid in placing the hall in possession of the members-elect, 
 that we may attend to the performance of our duties. 
 
 James S. Matthews, parish of Tensas ; E. W. Dewees, parish of Red Eiver ; E. 
 L. Pierson, parish of Natchitoches ; O. S. Hunsacker, parish of Saint James ; V. 
 Dickenson, parish of Saint James ; P. Jones Torke, parish of Carroll ; C. W. 
 Lowell, jiaiisli of .Titt'evson ; .1. D. Jourdain, seventh ward, parish of Orleans ; K. 
 E. Kay, parish of East Filiiinna; J. Koss Stewart, parish of Tensas; L. J. Souer, 
 
 fiarish of Avoyelles ; Sannu'l Tlioinas, parish of Bossier ; F. Marie, parish of Terre 
 Jonne; James Randall, jiarish oi Concordia; William Cra^^■ford, pari.sh of Rapi- 
 des; J. J. Johnson, parish of Caddo ; Isaac Sutton, pari.sh of Saint Mary's : Henry 
 Bemas, pari.sh of Saint John the Baptist; C. W. Keeting, parish of Caddo ; J. E. 
 Parker, parish of Jefl'ersou ; W. G. Lane, parish of East I'.aton Rouge; R. Poin- 
 dexter, parish of Assumption ; M. Hahn, parish of Saint Cliaik-s ; F. A. Woods, 
 parish of West Baton Rouge ; A. B. Levisee, parish of Caddo ; J. W. Armstead, 
 j)arish of West Feliciana ; George Gracien, fifteenth ward, parish of Orleans ; L. 
 Butler, parish of Ascen.sion ; Cain Sartain, parish of Carioll ; G. H. Hill, parish of 
 Ascension ; J. M. Carville, parish of Lberville ; .J. S. Davidson, palish of Iberville : 
 William Ridgeley, parish of Concordia; John DeLacey, parish of Rapides ; E. D. 
 Triplet, parish of East Baton Rouge ; George Druiy, parish of Assumption ; E. A. 
 Hubeau, parish of Jefferson ; H. Raby, parish of Is athitoches ; J. Connaughtou, 
 parish of Rapides; William Murrell, "parish of Madison; D. C. Hill, parish of 
 Ouachita; W. F. Southard, pari.sh of Ouachita; 1\ R. Wright, pari.sh of TeiTe 
 Bonne ; Emile Honore, parish of Point Coupee ; J. P. Wilson, parish of East Baton 
 Rouge ; L. AV". Baker, parish of Bossier ; Milton Jones, parish of Point Coupee ; A. 
 E. Milou, parish of Plaquemines ; L. A. Snaer, paiish of Iberia ; F. M. Grant, parish 
 of Morehouse; S. R. Pile, paiish of Saint Mary's ; R. F. Guichard, parish of Saint 
 Bernard. 
 
 I have consented to sign this document on the ground that the conservative mem- 
 bers of the house have set a precedent by appointing a special committee to wait 
 on General De Trobiiaud, who immediatelj' ajipeared at the bar of the house, es- 
 corted by said special committee. 
 
 ROBERT F. GUICHARD, 
 
 0/ Saint Bernard. 
 
 Under ordinary circumstances, without party excitement, no one 
 ■would object to the request of a majority of a Legislative Assembly 
 that the governor should give them possession of the hall in which 
 they are accustomed to meet and where by law they should meet. 
 Such aid was rendered without the use of more than a display of force. 
 The five persons illegal^ seated were removed by the United States 
 troops ; that is to say, by the representation of the United States 
 troops; for I believe that no soldier except officers entered the hall, 
 and by the same display of force in the persons of the tive ofificers who 
 entered as there previously had been on the invitation of the demo- 
 cratic members in the person of the one officer who entered, he him- 
 
20 
 
 seK speakiii«- for liis staff and the soldiers under liim, and lie accom- 
 panied by his staff, doing no more. 
 
 Mr. BAYARD. Will the Senator allow a correction ? 
 
 Mr. SARGENT. These corrections as they are called are simply 
 speeches. The Senator will have an opportunity to he heard and I 
 sliall listen to him with great pleasure. I am stating the result of 
 my reading of the legal documents on these matters. The Senator 
 when he comes to reply, and his party friends also, will have abun- 
 dant opportunity. I simply state that as I desire to speak at some 
 length, I do not want to prolong my remarks to the extent that they 
 would be if interruptions were permitted. 
 
 Mr. BAYARD. I shall not interpose. 
 
 Mr. SARGENT. I appreciate the Senator's courtesy, and I would 
 yield to him with as much pleasure as to any other Senator. 
 
 The military returning for the purpose of removing those who 
 were illegally seated gave an opportunity for the republican mem- 
 bers to enter the hall from which thej' had been excluded by the 
 order of Wiltz, Avho caused the door to be shut in their faces. I ask, 
 and the question is pregnant, whether such an act of the military 
 authority or any legitimate consequences to which it might have led 
 in the way of a further disi)lay or use of force — for I seek to evade 
 no question here — was within the purview of the constitution and 
 laws which I have cited ? If the halls of a State Legislature are 
 saci'cd against the protecting power of the United States when rebel- 
 lion is being made successful there, then the constitutional duty of 
 the United States cannot be performed and each State is at the 
 mercy of its enemies if they can possess the State capitol. 
 
 Questions of this character are not entirely new. They have been 
 discussed by our courts and by the early writers upon the Consti- 
 tution. They have been discussed in state jiapers. We are not left 
 entirely in tlie dark with reference to the proper construction of the 
 clause of the Constitution which I have read or the laws which were 
 passed in pursuance of it. Mr. Madison, a former President of the 
 United States, claimed by democrats as good authority for them, 
 although they wander very far from his precepts and his course of 
 thought, discussed this question in the Federalist under this very 
 guarantee clause as it is called. He and the other Avriters of the 
 Federalist and our judges have laid down the rule so clear and plain 
 that it seems almost to require partisan peiversion of the meaning 
 of the Constitution to escape the conclusion to which they arrive. 
 In the forty-third number of the Federalist written by Mr. Madison, 
 on page '235 of the edition before me, I find a quotation of the sixth 
 clause of the article to which I refer, namely : 
 
 To "iiarantee to every State in the Union a republican form of government ; to 
 protect each of them against invasion ; and on apjilicatiou of the Legislature, or 
 of the executive, (when the Legislature cannot be convened,) against domestic 
 violence. 
 
 This is followed by his comment upou the several provisions of 
 this clause : 
 
 In a confederacy founded on republican ])rinciples and composed of republi- 
 can numbers, the superintending government ought clearly to possess authority 
 to defend the system against aristocratic or monarchical innovation. 
 
 I pause to hear what innovation is more aristocratic than the 
 a88um])ti(m of a minority of a Legislature to take from a majority its 
 organization, to admit members without the consent of the majority, 
 and control 8ubse(|nently thereby, for good or evil, the legislation of 
 the State. Is not that aristocratic ? Ought not, in the language of 
 
21 
 
 Mr. Madison, the sup«i-iuleiiding government to have power to protect 
 and defend the system against such aristocratic innovation? 
 
 He says : 
 
 The more intiiiiatp the nature of sacli a imiou may he the greater interest have 
 the members in tlie politieal institutions of each other, and the greater rl^ht to 
 insist tliat tlie forms of government under which the compact was entered into 
 shonld be substantially/ maintained. 
 
 But a riglit imjiUis a remedy ; and where else could the remedy be deposited 
 than where it is dciiositcd l)y tin- Constitution ? Governments of dissimilar prin- 
 ciples and forms liave been found less adapted to a federal coalition of any sort thau 
 those of a kindred nature. "As the eoufederate republic of Genuany," says Mon- 
 tesquieu, "con.sists of free cities and petty states s.ubject to different princes, 
 experience shows us that it is more imperfect than that of Holland and Switzer- 
 land." "Greece was undone," he adds, "as soon as the king of Macedon obtained 
 a seat among the Amphietyons." In the latter case, no doubt, the dispropoitionate 
 force, as well as the monarchical form of the new confederate, had its share of influ- 
 ence on the events. 
 
 It may possibly be asked what need there could be of such a precaution, and 
 whether it may not become a pietoxt for alteration in the State governments, 
 without the concurrence of the States themselves. These questions admit of ready 
 answers. If the interposition of the General Government sliould not be needed, 
 the provision for such an event will be a harmless supirlluitv only in the Consti- 
 tution. But who can saj^ what experiments may be jirodnced by the caprice of 
 ])articular States, by the ambition of enterprising leaders, or by the intrigues and 
 influence of foreign powers. 
 
 The ambition of enterprising leaders sucli as Wiltz seized the lower 
 house of a Legislature with further-reaching intentions than eveu 
 that ; and it Avas within tlie purview of the Constitution, as stated by 
 Mr. Madison, to prevent this very thing — to defend the system against 
 such innovation. 
 
 To the second question it may be answered, that if the General Government 
 .sliould interpose by virtue of this constitutional authority, it will be of course 
 bound to pursue the authority. But the authority extends no further tlian to a 
 guarantee of a republican form of government, which supposes a pre-existing gov- 
 ernment of the form which is to be guarantiM'd. As long therefore as tlie existing 
 republican forms are continued by the States, they are guaranteed by the Federal 
 Constitution. "Whenevrr the States may choose' to substitute other republican 
 forms, they have a liglit to do so and to claim the Fede»al guarantee for the latter. 
 The only restriction imposed on them is that they shall not exchange republican 
 for anti-republican constitutions ; a restriction which, it is presumed, will hardly 
 be considered as a grievance. 
 
 He f lu'tber says — 
 
 Protection against domestic violence is added with equal propriety. It has been 
 remarked that even among the Swiss cantons, which properly speaking are not 
 under one government, provision is made for this object; and thi- liistory of that 
 league informs us that mutual aid is frequently claimed and atbinb'd, and as well 
 by the most democratic as the otlier cantons. A recent ami well known event 
 ainong ourselves has warned us to be jircparcil for cini/rgcncii's of a likcnature. 
 
 At first view it might seem not to squaie with tin- republiean tlicmv to suppose 
 that a majority have not the right or that a minority will have the force to subvertj 
 a government. 
 
 They did have the force in the Legislature of Louisiana by the aid 
 of the White Leagues which they called in, by the aid of the turbulent 
 and restless population which they had at their back, the minority 
 did have power to seize on the lower house of the Legislature — 
 
 And consequently that the Federal interposition can never be required but when 
 it would be imjiroyier. But theoretic reasoning in this, as in most other cases, 
 must be qualiti<-d bv the lessons of practice. Why may not illicit combinations 
 for purposes of violfuce be formed as well by a majoiity of a State, especially a 
 small State, as by a majority of a county or a district of the saine Statt' : and if 
 the authority of the State ought in the latter case to protect the local magistracy, 
 ought not tlie Federal authority in the former to support the State authority? 
 Besides, there are certain parts of the State constitutions which are so interwoven 
 with the Federal Constitution that a violent blow cannot be given to the one with- 
 out communicating the wound to the other. Insurrections in a State will rarely 
 induce a Federal interposition, unless the number concerned in them bear some 
 
proportion to the friends of government. It will be miicli better that tlie violence 
 in such cases should be repressed by the superintending power — 
 
 That is to say, the Government of the United States — 
 than that the majority should be left to maintain their cause by a bloody and 
 obstinate contest. The existence of a right to interpose wiU generally prevent the 
 necessity of exerting it. 
 
 Is it true that force and right are necessarily on the same side in republican 
 governments ? May not the minor i)arty possess such a superiority of pecuniary 
 resources, of military talents and experience, or of secret succors from foreign 
 powers as will render it superior also in an appeal to the sword? 
 
 In Lonisiana the blacks with the white republicans are probably 
 twenty thousand in the majority, and in the city of New Orleans 
 unquestionably largely in the majority ; but on account of this very 
 superiority of pecuniary resources, of the possession of property, ac- 
 customed to rule by an unrestrained and unlicensed will taught in 
 the school of slavery, the minority is enabled to produce these results 
 and call for this Federal intervention of which Mr. Madison in the 
 Federalist points out the likelihood, and the exercise of which he ap- 
 proves. 
 
 May not a more compact and advantageous position turn the scale on the same 
 side against a superior number so situated as to be less capable of a prompt and 
 collected exertion of its strength ? 
 
 Do not these very conditions exist in Louisiana, and could any 
 text follow closer to the exigency of things there and the necessary 
 action of the President of the United States than is here laid down 
 by James Madison ? 
 
 Nothing can be more chimerical than to imagine that in a trial of actual force 
 victory may be calculated by the rules which prevail in a census of the inliabitauts 
 or which determine the event of an election. 
 
 He further says : 
 
 In cases where it may be doubtful on w liich side justice lies, what better umpire 
 could be de.slre-d by two factious Hying to aiius and teaiiug the State to pieces 
 than th6repr<\sciif;itiv<'s of conl'riU'i'atti States nut lieatiil by tlie local tiame? T» 
 theimpartiality of judges they would unite tlie atl'ectiou of friends. Happy would 
 it be if such a remedy for its inlirmities could be enjoyed by all free governments ; 
 if a project equally effectual coixld be established for the universal peace of man- 
 kind. 
 
 Hamilton having the opposite political a' lews from Madison in the 
 early division of parties, Hamilton the federalist agreed with Madi- 
 son the anti-federalist, and liis discussion of this matter, on page 108, 
 in No. 21 of the Federalist, I desire to call attention to. He said : 
 
 Without a guarantee, the assistance to be derived from the Union in repelling 
 those domestic dftngeis, which may sometimes threaten the existence of the State 
 constitutions, must be renounced. Usurpation may rear its crest in each State 
 and trample uiiou thclibertiesof thepeople; while the National (rovcruiiuut could 
 legally do notliiug more than behold its encroachiiii'iilswith iiidigiiatiou;mdn'gret. 
 A stu-cessful faction may erect a tyrannv on the luiiis of oidcr and hnv. wliiU', no 
 succor could couskitutionally be nttoi-(lc<l by tlie Union lotlu' friends ainl suiijioi-ters 
 of the (iovfinincnt. Tlic tcni]>csluous situation from wliich ^Massaclinsctts has 
 .scarcely emerged evinces that dangers of tins kind are. not nu'rely s|ieculative. 
 Who can determine what might have been the issue of her late convulsions if the 
 malcontents had been headed by a Ca?sar or by a Cromwell. 
 
 Or if they had been headed by a Wiltz or a IMarr, what would have 
 been the result ? 
 
 Who can predict what effect a despotism, established in ^fassachusetts, would 
 liave been upon the liberties of New llampshire orllhode Island ; of Connecticut or 
 New York J 
 
 The inordinate pride of State importance has suggested to some minds an objec- 
 tion to the iiriiici|de of a guarantee in the Federal (loverument, as involving an 
 officious iuteri'ereuce in tile domestic concernsof the nii-niliers. A scruple of this 
 kind would de]uive usof one of the principal advantages to be expected from union, 
 iuid can only llow from a misapijreheu.sion of the nature of the jjrovision itself. It 
 
couM be no uupeilinieut to reforms of the State constitution by a majority of 'the 
 people in a le<;al and peaceable mode. This right would remain undiminished. 
 The guarantee could only operate against changes to be etfected by violence. 
 
 By the surrouudiiig of a legislative hall by an organized mob, as 
 was' the case in the city of New Orleans, where the white-leaguers 
 were assembled, where hook-and-ladder companies were at hand 
 ready with their implements to scale the windows of the senate cham- 
 ber and seize that body if the emeute in the house succeeded, where 
 knives and pistols were drawn, and where republican members were 
 controlled in their ingress and egress by force — when there was such 
 violence as to defy the State constitution and work a change in ordi- 
 nary parliamentary safeguards and a recurrence to aristocratic forms 
 or else a government by a mol) — in such events the violence was that 
 which Mr. Hamilton says the Constitittion was intended to guard 
 against. 
 
 Toward the prevention of calamities of this kind too many checks may not be 
 provided. The peace of society and the stability of government depeiul absolutely 
 ou the efficacy of the precautions adopted on this head. 
 
 This matter was discussed at great length in the case of Luther vs. 
 Borden, 7 Howard, page 42, by Chief Justice Taney, certainly good 
 democratic authority ; a man that all democrats would insist was, 
 and I dare say with a single exception and perhaps without excep- 
 tion republicans would admit, above reproach. In the Rhode Island 
 case he had occasion to pass upon a kindred question, upon the power 
 of the General Government under the guarantee clause of the Consti- 
 tution and under the laws which I have cited. He said, on page 42 
 of 7 Howard : 
 
 So, too, as relates to the clauses in the above-mentioned article of the Constitution > 
 providing for cases of domestic violence. It rested with Congress, too, to determine 
 upon the means proper to be adopted to fulfill this guarantee. They might, if they 
 had deemed it most advisable to do so, have jjlaced it in the power of a court to de- 
 cide when the contingency had happened which required the Federal Government 
 to interfere. But Congress tliought otherwise, and no doubt wisely ; and by the 
 act of Pebruary 28, 1795, provided that "in case of an insurrection in any State 
 against the government thereof , it shall be lawful for the President of the United 
 States, on application of the Legislature of such State, or of the Executive, (when 
 the Legislature cannot be convened.) to call forth such number of the militia of any 
 other State or States, as may be applied for, as he may judge sufiicient to suppress 
 such insurrection. 
 
 By this act, the power of deciding whether the exigency had arisen npon which 
 the Government o± the United States is bound to interfere, is ^iven to tlie Presi- 
 dent. He is to act upon the application of the Legislature or of the executive, and 
 consequently he must determine what body of men constitute tlio Legislature, and 
 who is the goverudr, before iio can act. The fact that both parties claim the right 
 to the government eaiiuot alter the case, for both cannot be entitled to it. If there 
 is an armed conflict, like the one of which we are speaking, it is a case of domestic 
 violence, and one of the paities must bo in insurrection against the lawful govern- 
 ment. And the President must, of necessity, decide which is the government and 
 which party is unlawfully arrayed against it before he can perform the duty imposed 
 upon him ijy the act of Congress. 
 
 That decision the President had made. That decision he did not 
 make on the 14th of September last or the 4th of January last, but 
 had made mouths and months before ; and had announced his conclu- 
 sion. When there was an insurrectionary attempt on the 14th of 
 September, called the Peun insurrection, to overthrow the State gov- 
 ernment of Louisiana, it was in spite of the recognition by the Presi- 
 dent under the Constitution and laws of the United States which 
 the Supreme Court here say it was his province to make. The court 
 proceed: . 
 
 After the President lias acted and called out the militia, is a circuit court of the 
 United States authorized to inquire whether his decision wu.s right* Could the 
 
24 
 
 court, while the parties Tvore actually contending in arms for the possession oi 
 the Government, call witnesses before it and inquire which party represented a 
 majoiity of the people? If it could, then it would become the duty of the court 
 (provided it came to the conclusion that the President had decided incorrectly) to 
 disoharjie those who were arrested or detained by the troops in the service ot the 
 TJuited States or the Government which the Tresident was endeavoring to main- 
 tain. If the judicial power extends so far, the guarantee contained in the Consti- 
 tution of the United States is a guarantee of anarchy, and not of order. Yet if 
 this right does not reside in the courts when the conflict is raging, if the judicial 
 power is at that time bound to foUow the decision of the political, it must be'ecLually 
 bound when the contest is over. 
 
 In other words, it is bound all the way through, and the decision 
 of the President is constitutional. Of course it is under the sanctions 
 of his oath and the responsibilities of his office, and in performing 
 that duty he does not assume the functions of a Ciesar who should 
 have his robes stripped from him. He is simply performing his con- 
 stitutional duty as President of the United States. So says Chief 
 Justice Taney. But it comes so easily and so gratefully from demo- 
 cratic orators when there is any attempt made to f ulhll the guaran- 
 tees of the Constitution, to protect a State from domestic violence, 
 such as we have seen of late, to say, "Here is a Ciesar; here is an 
 unconstitutional act; this is a violation of law and of the Constitu- 
 tion ; and the people of the United States ought to rise and strip the 
 robes of this Caesar from him." Then tear down the monument 
 erected to Taney; take his bust from the Supreme Court room; defile 
 his memory with your opprobrium and obloquy; tear the pages 
 written by Madison and Hamilton from the Federalist; blot the 
 proudest record of your whole country and the proudest sentiments 
 ever uttered in defense of liberty and in defense of the Constitution 
 and you may be consistent; but you are not consistent at this late 
 day in reversing all the teachings of the fathers while pretending 
 to revere and follow them. You assume to raise this cry against the 
 President of the United States for treading in the footsteps where 
 they trod and in the paths which they marked out. 
 
 The court say : 
 
 It cannot, when peace is restored, punish as offenses and crimes the acts which it 
 before recognized, and was bound to recognize, as lawful. 
 
 The court say further : 
 
 It is said that this power in the President is dangerous to liberty and maybe 
 abused. All power may be abiiscil if ]ilaced in unwortliy hands. But it would be 
 ditticult, we think, to point out any otlicr hands in whichthis jwwer would be more 
 safe and at the same time equally etlVitnal. A\'luii citizens of tlie same State are 
 in arms against each other, and tlie cimstituted autliorities iimilile to execute the 
 laws, the interposition of the United States mnst lie iiroinpt nr it is of little value. 
 The ordinary couise of proceedings in courts of justice would be utterlj' unfit for 
 the crisis. 
 
 Ordinary proceedings of course would be entirely unfit for the 
 crisis. It requires the President to act, and how act ? The Consti- 
 tution says he shall protect, but how protect ? The laws come in 
 and say by the tise of the Army of the United States. The law 
 authorizing the militia Avas changed by the anti-federalists to the 
 Ai'my of the United States. He must act jiromptly, effectually, and 
 by the Army of the United States ; and yet for so doing he is de- 
 nounced as a Caisar and his acts as anti-republican. 
 
 The ordinary course of proceedings in courts of justice would be utterly unfit 
 for the crisis. And the elevated office of the President, chosen as he is by tlie peo- 
 ple of the United States, and the higli responsibility lie ((luldnot fail to feel when 
 acting in a case of so much moment, ajuxar to furni^li as t-tmiig safeguaids against 
 a willful abuse of power as human ))ru(ience and foresi^^lit conld well i)r(ivide. At 
 all events it is conferred upon him by the Constitution and laws of the United 
 States, and must therefore bo resiicctcd and enforced in its judicial tribunals. 
 
Ay. sir, anil should therefore beresi)ected by Senators of the United 
 States and the Senate of the United States, and they should not teach 
 Ihe people tolooknpon it with conteni]>t or with suspicion, if it is con- 
 stitutional, conferred by the Coustitntion and the laws of the United 
 States. 
 
 Now, to show that this very anticipation of Chief Justice Taney in 
 the case of Lnther vs. Borden, of the manner in which a President 
 of the United States, and even this President thus denounced, would 
 look upon the necessary and constitutional exercise of this power, 
 however unwilling- under any circumstances even so grave as these 
 to exercise it, I call attention to a single passage in the recent mes- 
 sage of the President of the United States: 
 
 I liave 110 desire to have ITnited States troops iuteifere iu thu rloinestic concerus 
 of Louisiaua or any other State. 
 
 On the 9th of December last Governor Kellojic: tcleiijaphed to me his apinehen- 
 .sions that the White League intended to make aiiotlicr attack iqiou the State- 
 house, to which, on the same day, I made the fuUowiug aus^vur, siuce which uo 
 communication lias hccii sent to him : 
 
 " Ydiiv (lispatcli of tliis date just received. It is exceedingly unpalatable to use 
 troops in anticipation of danger. Let the State authorities be right, and tlien pro- 
 ceed with their duties watliout apiirohcnsiou of danger. If they are then mo- 
 lested, the question will bo dctrnnincd whether the United States is able to maiu- 
 tfiin law and order within its limits or not." 
 
 I have deplored the necessity which seemed to make it my duty under the Con- 
 stitution and laws to direct such interference. I have always refused except 
 where it seemed to be niy imperative duty to act in such a manner under the Con- 
 stitution and laws of the United States. 1 have repeatedly and earnestly entreated 
 the people of the South to live together in peace, and obey the laws: and nothing 
 would give me greater pleasure than to see reconciliation and tranquillity every- 
 where prevail, and thereby remove all necessity for the presence of troops among 
 them. I regi'et, however, to say that this state" of things does not exist, nor does 
 its existence seem to be desired in some localities; and as to those it may be proper 
 forme to say that, to the extent tliat ('ougress has confened power ujion me to 
 prevent it, neither Ku-Klux-Klans, AN'Iiite Leagues, nor any other assnciat ion using 
 arms and violence to execute tlieir unlawfur purposes, can be permitted in that 
 way to govern any part of this country ; nor can I see with indifference Union men 
 or republicans ostracized, persecuted, and murdered on account of their oxjinions, 
 as they now are in some localities. 
 
 Show me the man who dares stand up in the face of the American 
 people and say that tiie sentiments of the extracts I have read are 
 not just and humane, that they do not do honor to the head and 
 heart of the President of the United States ? Who looks with in- 
 difference upon the murder of Union men for their political opinions? 
 Who desires to see Ku-Klux-Klans, or White Leagues, or any other 
 association of men use arms and violence to enforce unlawful and 
 illegal purposes ? At the same time, while it is repugnant to his 
 feelings to use military force to compel obedience to the laws, he 
 recognizes it as a constitutional duty. In this very case referred to 
 in Luther rs. Bordeh a former President of the United States wrote 
 a letter to Governor King, of Rhode Island, who represented the char- 
 ter government, and in that letter President Tyler said : 
 
 I have, however, to assure your excellency that should the time arrive (and my 
 fervent pra.yer is it may never come) — 
 
 In the very si)irit in which his successor, President Grant, speaks of 
 the regret with which he sees these things transpire — 
 
 when an insurrection shall exist against the government of Rhode Island, and 
 a requisition shall be made upon the Executive of the I'nited States to furnish that 
 protection which is guaranteed to each State by the Constitutiim and laws, I shall 
 not be found to shrink from the performance of a duty whicli, while it is most 
 painf al, is at the same time most imperative. I have also to say that in such a con- 
 tingency the Executive could not look into any real or supposed defects of the exist- 
 ing government, in order to ascertaiu whether some other plan of government pro- 
 
2G 
 
 posed for adoption was better saiited to the wauts and luorc in accordance with the 
 Avishee of any portion of lier citizens. 
 
 It will be my duty, on tlie contrary, to respect the reqnisitions of that govern 
 ment which has been lecotriiized as tne existing government of the State through 
 all time past, until I shall be advised in a regular manner that it has been altered 
 and abofished and another substituted in its place, by legal and peaceable proceed- 
 ings, adopted and pursued by the authorities and the people of the State. 
 
 Thereby stating his belief in the existence of the power, the pain- 
 ful duty which would be put upon him to exercise it and use the 
 Army of the United States to put down domestic violence in that 
 State and protect the authority Avhich he recognized as the existing 
 authority. The people of the State by a large majority had adopted 
 another constitution formed by a convention called by means not 
 provided by the constitution itself, and President Tyler, with the 
 assent of the democratic part^'' at that time — I believe without the 
 dissent of any strong party in Congress, because a resolution to cen- 
 sure him for his course failed in the House of Representatives — Presi- 
 dent Tj'ler stated his readiness to intervene with military force and 
 thtis put thinks back as they were, or rather to maintain the existing 
 order of things against the will of the people of the State. I say 
 that the President recognized this, as have all his predecessors and 
 the law writers on the Constitution and the judges, as a ccmstitutional 
 duty. If it is a constitutional dutj'^, that duty carries with it the legal 
 right, and implies all the requisite means to discharge it. The guar- 
 antee clause gives the i>ower. The emergencies which give rise to 
 exercises of this power are exceptional, but the means are ample. I 
 have already ([noted liom the opinions of Alexander Hamilton. In 
 a most able and exhaustive opinion of his as Secretary of the Treasuiy, 
 upon the constitutionality of the United States Bank, in a letter 
 written to President Washington, he discussed the nature of the 
 power granted by the Constitution to effect any particular object, 
 holding that the end itself being clearly recognizable in the Constitu- 
 tion, the force is conveyed by the Constitution, sovereign in its nature, 
 to give full effect to that power wliich is thus conferred. I ask the 
 Secretary to read what I have marked on pages 95 and 9() of the book 
 which I send to the desk. 
 
 The Secretary read as follows : 
 
 jSTow, it appears to the Secretary of the Treasury that this general principle ia 
 inherent in the veiy definition of government, and essential to every step of the 
 progress to be made by that of the United States, namely, that every power vested in 
 a government is in its nature sovereir/n. and includos, hy force of the term, aright 
 to employ all the means requisite, and fairly a])|>licalil(\ to the attaiuincut of the 
 ends of such power, and which aie not ijrecluded by restrictions anil exceptions 
 specified in the Constitution, or not immoral or not contrary to the essential ends of 
 political society. 
 
 This priuci]ile, in its application to government in general, would be admitted as 
 an axiom : and it will be iiicuiubLiit ujion those wlio may incline to deny it to prove 
 adistiiii'tioii, and to show that a rule which in tin- general system of tilings is es- 
 sential to tlie ]ireservation of tlie social order is inai)plicable to tlic United States. 
 
 The circiuiistauee tliat the jiowers of sovereignty aie, in this country, divided 
 between tlie national and Slate governnieuts does not att'ord the distinction re- 
 qiiired. It docs not fidlow from this that each of the portions of power delegated 
 to the one or to the other is not sovereign with regard to its proper objects. It will 
 <mly follow from it that each has sovereign power as to certain things, and not as 
 to other things. To denj' that the Government of the United States has sovereign 
 power as to its declined purposes and trusts, because its jiower does not extend to 
 all laws, would be e(|iially to deny that the State governments have sovereign 
 power in ai^y case, because their power does not extend to ererii case. The tenth 
 section of the first article of tlii; Constitution exhibits a long list of very important 
 things which they may not do ; and tiiiis the United States would furnish the sin- 
 gular spectacle of a political society without suvereigiUij, or of a peoide govemed 
 without government. 
 
1i 
 
 If it-would be iiccossary to In iii^ luoof to a proposition so clear as that wliicb 
 affirms that the powers of' tin' Frclii;il (iovernmeut as to its objects are sovereiffu, 
 there is a clause of its Coiistitutioii which would be decisive ; it is that which de- 
 elares that the Constitution and the laws of the United States made in ])ursuance 
 of it and all treaties made, or which sliall be made, under their authority shall be 
 the supreme laiv of the land. The power which can create the siiprcme law of the 
 land in any case is doubtless sovereign as to such case. 
 
 Mr. SAEGENT. Mr. President, democratic sanction to tlie exercise 
 of such power by a President of the United States is recent. After 
 the cessation of hostilities on the 21st of May, 1865, President Johnson 
 authorized General Canby to telegraph to the commander of the 
 Deiiartment of the Mississippi as follows : 
 
 You will prevent by force, if necessary, any attempt of any of the Legislatuies of 
 the States in insiu-rection to assemble for legislative purposes, and will imprison 
 any members or other persons who may attempt to exercise these functions iu 
 opposition to your orders. 
 
 President Johnson antliorized General Canby, the commander of 
 the Department of INIississippi, to arrest legislators or any person 
 who should abet legislati us iu assembling for legislative purposes; 
 and this was months after the surrender of the rebel army. I say 
 that there is democratic sanction for this precedent. Why? Because 
 the then ensuing democratic national convention passed a resolution 
 indorsing Johnson's administration for its regard for and preserva- 
 tion of the Constitution of the United States. I do not think there 
 is an answer for it tliat this man was President of the United States 
 and had some patronage and it was an object to tickle his elbow or 
 please his fancy and induce him to favor the democratic party. If 
 that was so, then it was the lowest kmd of political scheming. That 
 was so, or else it was an iutelligont indorsement, or unintelligent, as 
 you please, of the administration of Andi-ew Johnson, of the consti- 
 tutionality of his proceedings when he employed the Army of the 
 United States to prevent the assembling of Legislatures and arrested 
 the members. 
 
 Mr. MORTON. Will my friend from California yield to me a mo- 
 ment ? 
 
 Mr. SAEGENT. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. MORTON. I desire to give notice that I will ask the Senate 
 ou to-morrow not to adjourn until this resolution has been disposed 
 of. 
 
 Mr. HAMLIN. To-morrow ? 
 
 IVIr. STEVENSON. To-morrow has beeu set apart for the funeral 
 ceremonies of Mr. Hoopkr. 
 
 Mr. MORTON. I was not aware of it. 
 
 Mr. HAMLIN. I saw iu the papers that at four o'clock and forty 
 minutes notice of the decease of Mr. Hooper will be communicated 
 to the House, and I saw in the papers also that the services will be in 
 the Hall of the House to-morrow. I presume the House will send a 
 resolution here acquainting us of these facts and requesting the at- 
 tendance of the Senate to-morrow. If so, then the Senator's sug- 
 gestion can hardly be carried out to-morroAV. 
 
 Mr. MORTON. Unless the Senate might meet afterward. 
 
 Mr. HAMLIN. I do not know but that it might take a recess for 
 the purpose. 
 
 Mr. STEVENSON. I hardly think we should do that. I hope the 
 Senator fi'om Indiana will not lix to-morrow ; at least out of respect 
 to Mr. Hooper, who will be buried from the House. 
 
 Mr. MORTON. Of course, I do not want to violate any of the 
 proprieties; but the time of the session is so limited, if we expect to 
 
28 
 
 do any tiling with this resolution, we shall have t:) reniaiu here until 
 it is disposed of when we next take it up. 
 
 Mr. SAULSBURY. I understand several Senators desire to speak 
 upon it 
 
 Mr. SARGENT. I believe I am entitled to the floor. 
 
 The PRESIDENT pro temjjore. The Senator from California is 
 entitled to the flooi*. 
 
 Mr. SARGENT. Mr. President, in the same manner that they ap- 
 proved the act of President Johnson in this military inteiference with 
 the Legislatures of Mississippi and elsewhere they approved Mc- 
 CloUan's order to arrest the Maryland Legislature, which was a non-- 
 seceded state, which never did sunder its relations with the Union, 
 Avhich, by any logic which they would admit, was entitled to all its 
 rights as, in their own phrase, a sovereign State. But he gave these 
 orders and they were executed, and they hastened to nominate him 
 for President of the United States. So, as I say, we not only have 
 the teaching of the fathers on this point so plain it cannot be misun- 
 derstood, but we have the assent of the democratic party in their 
 great national conventions where they meet for the very purpose of 
 exchanging views and picking out the men who accordiHg to theii 
 ideas are most faithful to the Constitution. 
 
 Passing from this, however, I say that under the Constitution of 
 the United States the right and duty of the United States to inter- 
 vene to protect a State against domestic violejice cannot be ques- 
 tioned. There is no limit as to place of intervention. A legisla- 
 tive hall is not excepted by the Constitution, and may be, as in this 
 case, the most necessary jilace for its exercise. Stress has been laid 
 by our democratic fiiends upon the idea that here Avas an attempt 
 by the military to decide who were entitled to seats in the hall ; that 
 they were made to decide upon contested elections. There is no integ- 
 rity in the idea whatever. The military were used simply to protect 
 the majority of the Legislature iu their right to the possession of the 
 hall against intruders who would illegally destroy their authority as 
 a majority of the body. There was a duty on the i)art of the Govern- 
 ment to enforce the laws of the State of Louisiana, so set down in the 
 law of the United States following the guarantee clause of the Constitu- 
 tion. There was a right of the majority to have the presiding ofhcer 
 named by the law to preside until an organization was ett'ected, to 
 have the roll called, to have honor, honesty, decency and fair play in 
 the organization of that house. All these laws and the laws of 
 Louisiana required it, and the military was simply called in to clear 
 the hall of those who had intruded to seats there and who were not 
 members of the house. Thej^ had the same right to do this that they 
 would have had to i^rotect the returning board as it was sitting listen- 
 ing to the arguments of democratic and rei>ublican lawyers on con- 
 tested seats and contested questions, if the mob had attempted to break 
 them up. If a White League or an organized force had attempted 
 to break up the returning board the military would have had the 
 right, it would have been their duty, under the guarantee clause, to 
 have protected the returning board in this necessary discharge of its 
 functions, to see that none intruded intoitsdeliberations, usurped its 
 functions, or broke up its sessions. But is it not audacious for those 
 rioters who were guilty of the fraud and the force which took place 
 there, Avho were guilty of the crimes which Avere staining then and 
 there the legislative history of the Legislature, who were brandishing 
 their knives and pistols, the agents of a ])assionate mob outside who 
 were encouraging their proceedings by their hideous yells — is it not 
 
29 
 
 aiuliicioiis for tlieso nwn or those who apologize for them to coniphiiu 
 of those measures which were taken to reduce them to submission to 
 the haws? They are the complaining parties, not the majority of the 
 Legislature of Louisiana, none of the fifty-two members who were 
 entitled to seats there. Those who complain are the White-League 
 sergeants-at-arms who turned down the lapels of their coats on the 
 instant and showed the preconcert by which they were there to pro- 
 duce these very results. Those who complain are the mob and the 
 minority on that lioor who had usurped the right to organize the 
 house, and sought to effect it by force and fraud. 
 
 This seizure of the house was but part of a plan to invade the sen- 
 ate and seize the rest of the government. The President in his mes- 
 sage says with regard to this : 
 
 Nobody was distuilied iiy the military who liad a legal right at that time to 
 occupy a seat in the Lenislatiire. That the democratic minority of the house 
 undertook to seize its oiiranization by fraud and violence; that in this attempt 
 they tiampled under foot ia\s' ; that they undertook to make persons not returned 
 as elected membeis, so as to cieate a majority ; that they acted under a precon- 
 certed plan, and under false pretenses introduced into the hall a body of men to 
 support their pretensions by force, if necessary, and th.at conflict, disorder, and 
 riotous proceediujis followed, are facts that scnu to be well established, and I am 
 credibly informed that these violent pmci-cdiniis were a part of a ]iremeditated 
 plan to have the house oruanized in this way, iL-co,i;nize what has been called the 
 McEnery senate, then to depose Governor Kellof^y, and so revolutionize the State 
 government. 
 
 Was it not the duty of the Government to interfere under circum- 
 stances like these ? Most of these facts are patent upon the face of 
 them, and the only one added is that by the President, who states it 
 on reliable authority. The seizure of the house was simjily an incident 
 of the plan by which the senate was to be revolutionized, by which 
 the State government was to be overthrown. Now what becomes of 
 the guarantee clause of your Constitution, what becomes of the decis- 
 ion of your Supreme Court if all this power in the Constitution falls 
 powerless before an attempt like this ? It is a mere farce, and as I 
 said before, any power designing to subvert a State government can 
 succeed in its ends provided by force or fraud it can get possession 
 of the State capitol. 
 
 But these events in Louisiana are not to be treated as the whole 
 case. They are but one incident to a long train of circumstances 
 which must be understood to see what the (iovernment was resisting 
 in New Orleans. On the 14th of last September, after a demand on 
 the governor to resign, in an insurrection against the State govern- 
 ment, fifteen policemen were killed and thirty wounded. The inter- 
 vention of Federal soldiers restored peace. I have already shown 
 that Governor Kellogg at that time, under article 4, section 4, of the 
 Constitution, made a requisition for United States aid. The armed 
 orgauiz;*tions continued having large quantities of arms which they 
 had captured from the State militia and which they never have sur- 
 rendered although required to do so by a proclamation of the Presi- 
 dent of the United States. They retain them at this time as imple- 
 ments of warfare against the State and National Government. 
 
 DemocraJ;ic Senators have sneered at the idea that the call for 
 troops covered the action of January 4, that the call on September 
 14 related to and continued down to January 4. Let us see. There 
 is a parallel in the case of Pennsylvania in 1794, when Washing- 
 ton was President of the United States. Edmund Eandolph was 
 Secretary of State, and by direction of tlie President, August 30, 
 wrote to Governor MifHin, of Pennsylvania, on this very question of 
 continuing forces in the fitdd even after the dispersion of those en 
 
30 
 
 gaged iu resisting tlic laws; and I quote from Ilauiilton's Works, page 
 22, et pas-'<im. 
 
 Mr. STEVENSON. What volume ? 
 
 Mr. SARGENT. Volume 5. I ask the Secretary to read what I 
 Lave marked. 
 
 The Secretary read as follows : 
 
 There remains only one point on wbicli yonr excrllc ik y will be longer detained ; 
 a point, indeed, of sieat importance, and c(nisi'([ii('iilly liciuands serious and care- 
 ful reflection. It is tlie opinion you so enipliMtii'ally cxjjn'ss, that the mere dis- 
 ]M'rsion of the insurscnts is the sole olijcct foi- which' tlie militia can be called out, 
 or kept in service after tlicy may lia\c been called out. 
 
 The Presideut reseives to the last moment the consideration and decision of this 
 point. 
 
 But there are arguments ■weighing heavily against the opinion yon have ex- 
 pressed, which, in the moan time, are offeied to your candid consideration. 
 
 The Constitution of tlu- TTnited States (article I, section 8) empowers Congress 
 "to provide for calling foith the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress 
 insurrections, and re])el invasions;" evidently from the wording and distribution of 
 the sentence contemplating the execution of the laws of the Union as a thing 
 distinct from the suppression of insurrections. 
 
 The act of May 2, 179ii, for carrjiug the provision of the Constitution into effect 
 adojits for its tith' the very words of the Constitution, being "An act to provide for 
 calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, 
 and repel inva.sinus. 'continuing the constitutional distinction. 
 
 The fir.st sec tiou of the act provides for the cases of invasion and of insurrec- 
 tion, coniining the latter to the case of insiurection again.st the government of a 
 State. The seeoml section provides for the case of the execution of the laws being 
 obstructed by combinations too powerful to be supi)ressed by the ordinary covu'se 
 of judicial proceedings or by the jjowers vested in the maislials. 
 
 The words are tliese : '• AVheuever the laws of the United States shall be opposed 
 or the execution theieof obstructed in any State by combinations too powerful to 
 be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings or by the powers 
 vested in the marshals by this act, the same Ijeing notified to the President of the 
 United Stati-sliy an associate judge or the district judge, it .shall be lawful for the 
 I'resident of the United States to call forth the militia of such State to sui)pres8 
 such combinations and to cause the laws to be jduly executed." Then follows a 
 pro\'isiou for calling forth the militia of other States. 
 
 The terms of this section appe.ir to contemplate and describe something that 
 maybe less than insuirection. " The combinations " mentioned may Indeed amount 
 to insurrections, but it is conceivable that they may stop at associations not to 
 conqily with the law, supjwrtedby riots, assassinations, and murders, and by a gen- 
 eral spirit in a part of the community which may baBle the ordinary judiciary 
 means, with no other aid than the i)osse comitatus, magistrates, and officers in the 
 execution of their duty. And the objects for which the militia are to be called are 
 expressly not only to suppress these combinations, (whether amounting to insur- 
 rections or not,) but to cause the laws to be duly executed. 
 
 It is therefore plainly contrary to th<' manifest general intent of the Constitution 
 and of this act, and to the positive and exjjress terms of the second section of the 
 act, to say that the militia called forth are not to bo continued in ser^ace for the 
 ])urpose of cau.sing the laws to be duly executed, and, of coiu-se, till they are so ex- 
 ecuted. 
 
 What is the main and ultimate object of calling forth the militia? "To cause the 
 laws to be executed.' Which ari^ the laws to be exeeute<l ? Those which are op- 
 ])0sed and obstructed in their i'x<'cution bj^ the combinations described in the pres- 
 ent case — the laws laying cluties u])on spirits distilled within the XTnited States, 
 and upon stills; and incidentally tho.se which ujdiohl the judieiaiy functions. 
 "When are the laws executed f Clearly when the opposition is sulidueil ; when 
 penalties for disobedience can be enforced ; when a compliance is oli'ectuatecl. 
 
 Would tbenieie ilis|ieision of insurgents and their retiring to their respei'tive 
 homes do this .' Would it .satisfy either member of the provision, the suppression 
 of the c()nil>iuations, or the execution of the laws? Might not the former, notwith- 
 standing tlie disper.sion, continue in full vigor, ready at any moment to break out 
 into new acts of resistance to the laws? Are the militia to be kejit ])erpetually 
 marching and conntermarching toward the insurgents while they are embodied, 
 and fnnn tliein when they have separated and retired ? Sw]i|iose the insurgents, 
 hardy enough to wait the exjieriment of a battle, are vanciuished, ami then disperse 
 and retires home, are the militia immediately to retire also to give them an opportu- 
 nity to reassemble, reernit. and prepare for another battle? And is this to go on 
 an<l be repeated without limit ? 
 
 Such a construction of the law, if true, were certainly a very unfortunate one, 
 
31 
 
 rendorint; its jnovisioiis cssoiitiMllv iiu.;iiliirv. mid Iradiuu, to endless expense anil 
 as endless disuppoiutment. It could liaidly l)i^ advisable to vex the militia by 
 niarehin'j, thciii to a distant point, where they uii^ht seaieely he arrived before it 
 would he le;:al]y necessarv for them to return, not in conseciueuee of ha^'ing ef- 
 fected their Oliject— of having "caused the laws to l)e .■xcciited "— but iu conse- 
 quence of tlir mere stratay;em of a deceitfnl dispersion and retiring. 
 
 Mr. SARGENT. Oix the 14th of September hist tliere was a clemaud 
 on the governor by a couunittee of thirty appointed by a meeting hekl 
 in New Orleans that he resign his office. He deelined. There was 
 then an insurrection in the streets of New Orleans. I will say to my 
 friend from Kentncky, [Mr. McCreery,] who remarks to me, sotto 
 voce, that there was no insurrection there, and hence it was not a 
 parallel case, that there was iu,surrection in New Orleans, there were 
 men killed and wounded there by the scores, and the demand they 
 made at their meetings was the overthrow of the State government. 
 AVhat constitutes an insurrection ? Is it not the rising of citizens, of 
 the populace, against the government ? Is it not enforcing their 
 demand by blood ? Is it not demanding the subversion of the govern- 
 ment ? Then if an insurrection existed there, and certainly there was 
 much more of one than there was in Pennsylvania, where it was simply 
 resistance to the excise law, where I believe there was nobody killed, 
 nobody hurt, or in extremely rare instances if at all — if that in Penn- 
 sylvania which Randolph I'efers to was an insurrection, then for God's 
 sake how much more important was the insurrection which took place 
 on the 14th of September in Louisiana, in the city of New Orleans, 
 when these consequences of which I speak occurred f Of course those 
 who were killed Avere only reiiublicans ; they may have been only 
 negroes. It may not amount to insurrection to kill men of that sort 
 although the object is to subvert a government, and those who were 
 killed were the men who maintaiuetl it ; but in my mind it is an iusiu*- 
 rectiou. 
 
 In Pennsylvania, by tlie express order of President Washington, the 
 troops were kept in the field after the dispersion of the insurgents or 
 those who were resisting the excise law. Says Alexander Hamilton 
 in his letter to Lee, who was commanding the forces : 
 
 Bedford, Octoler 20, 1794. 
 
 SiK : I have it in special instruction from the President of the United States now 
 at this place, to convey to you the following in.stiiictions for the general direction 
 of your conduct in the command of the militia army, with which you are charged. 
 
 After giving other dkections, he says : 
 
 When the insurrection is subdued, and the requisite means have been put in exe- 
 cution to secure obedience to the laws, so as to render it proper for the Army to 
 retire, (an event which you will accelerate as much as shall be consistent with the 
 object,) you will endeavor to make an airangement for detaching such force as you 
 deem adequate, to he stationed within tlic disart'ectcd country in such a manuer as 
 best to atlord i)rotei'tiou to well-disposiMl citizens and to tlu^ officers of the revenue, 
 and to reinvss by their presence the spirit of riot and opposition to the laws. 
 
 Now, that is just what President Grant did after the 14th of Sep- 
 tember. When by his proclamation the insurgents had been dispersed 
 by the show of military force which was made there and quiet was 
 restored, although the insurgents diil not give up the arms which 
 feloniously they had taken from the State authorities, he kept the 
 Army there as a corps of observation, " to afford protection to well- 
 disposed citizens, and to repress by their presence the spirit of riot 
 and opposition to the laws," and so they were there and so continu- 
 ing to the 4th day of January, 1875. So Sheridan found them when 
 he went there and spoke of the condition of things and the banditti 
 which were traversing that State. O, yes ; that is a terrible phrase, 
 this word " banditti ! " How is it possible that a man of Sheridan's 
 
32 
 
 character could Lave uttered it ? I find in a letter of Edmund Ran- 
 dolph, written by the direction of Washington, to Miltliu, governor 
 of PeniLsylvania, these words applied to the persons who Avere resist- 
 ing the laws of Penn.sylvania : 
 
 An armed baudittf— 
 
 He says — 
 
 in disguise, hart recently gone to the house of an officer of the revenue in the 
 night, attacked it, broken open the dooi-.s, and, by menaces of instant deatli, en- 
 forced by pistols presented at him, had compelled a surrender of his commission 
 and boots of office. 
 
 This word is, contemporary with Washington's administration, ap- 
 plied to lawless men who go about with arms at night to interfere 
 with otiicers of the Government in the discharge of their duty, to 
 put peaceable and well-disposed citizens in peril of their lives. More 
 than that in the case of Louisiana; less than that even in Pennsylvania. 
 If Ednninil Randolph, Secretary of State of Washington, writing 
 under Washington's orders, could properly use the word "banditti" 
 as applied to men engaged in any such tritlingly dangerous jtroceed- 
 ings compared with those in Louisiana, with how much more terrible 
 force comes the truthfulness in the condemnation of Sheridan when 
 he applies it to these men who have deluged the State of Louisiana 
 with republicair blood, who have driven at one election twenty thou- 
 sand men from the polls in terror for their lives, who have driven 
 them to the woods to subsist upon roots aud acorns or any means which 
 they could get by fugitive processes hiding in terror of their lives, 
 who within a few days of one election killed hundreds of men, 
 ■who tinally on the 14th of September after many atrocities which 
 they had committed leading up to the event overturned the State 
 government, and who were driven from the power which they had 
 usurped by the United States forces, by the terror of the intervention, 
 under the guarantee clause, of the President of the United States. 
 I ask if the word banditti is not properly used under such circum- 
 stances, and. if Sheridan has not an illustrious precedent for the use 
 whi(;li he makes of it ? 
 
 This September insurrection to which I refer is not all the picture 
 by any means. The city for months had been a scene of a reign of 
 terror to prevent the voting and registration of republicans. Large 
 bodies of armed men traversed the republican districts, murdering 
 ■worthy and inoffensive men, as at Coushatta where they assassinated 
 Twitchell, a planter in Red River Parish; Eggleston, sherifl"; 
 Dewees, supervisor; and Holland and Howells, lawyers, two of them 
 southern born. We all know how that was done, these men being- 
 promised a safe escort after it was demanded that they should leave 
 the State and resign the offices to which they had been legally and 
 fairly elected. They being under safe escort, as promised, were mur- 
 dered on their way to the State boirndary. Time would fail to 
 recount all the assassinations for political purposes attending the 
 last election in Louisiana, and democratic Senators' ears lire offended 
 by the cry of murder, murder! Do you not think we are trred of the 
 fact of murder, murder? If it is painful for your ears to hear it, is it 
 not iiainful for us to know that it is conynitted? 
 
 On the general state of society the testimony of Ruford Blunt, 
 recently a State senator, residing in Natchitoches, taken by the 
 House committee recently at New Orleans, is impressive. Describing 
 affairs in the last registration and election in that parish, he says: 
 
 I seldom slept at home; otliei' colored men remained in the -woods after the reg- 
 istering office closed ; about live hundred colored men did not register; some of 
 
33 
 
 those who registered could not vote because the registering officer spelled their 
 names wronj;ly ; there was a reign of terror up to I'ltctiou day ; I rcsiyiu-d my po- 
 sition as senator to save my life; there is a petition in niy jiaiish asking Congress 
 to do something to protect colored people ; tbi' cohued men believe that the whites 
 intend to reduce them to slavery again. 
 
 On election day many of my people were prevented from votinn; as they chose, 
 and some of them voted the White League ticket; they voted that way to save 
 themselves ; without the presence of troops on election day, I think not niore than 
 five hundred colored men could have voted: tlie white people agreed to employ 
 men who voted the democratic ticket first, and next, men who did not vote at all ; 
 the public schools in Natchitoches are fiee, and at present colored chililreii attend 
 them more regularly than white children ; the colon-d peojde in tlie iiaiish would 
 not be safe under democratic rule; I know ten colored men who voted the demo- 
 cratic ticket ; the hatred of the people is directed against both iie^i oes ;uid repub- 
 licans; I don't believe that a good democrat from the Xorth dining the last cam- 
 paign could have canvassed the parish in safety if he had favored fair nn-asures 
 andTdeprecated intimidation ; the planters andmercliant.sgeiienilly manage to swin- 
 dle the negroes out of their earnings; the feeling <d' <listrust on the part of the 
 colored people of the whites was not suggested to them by the republicans. 
 
 William H. Maxey testified before that committee a very important 
 tiling, so far as McEnery was concerned, it seems to me. I have a 
 short extract from his testimony, which I have separated from the 
 rest: 
 
 Itwasirapossibletohaveafairregisti-ation and election. Last year, when Mr. Mc- 
 Enery made a speech in Homer and one in Winn, about half way tin migli liis speech 
 he said there were too many Maxeys and Blackbnrns ; if some of tliem were hung 
 it would be a good thing. 
 
 Here was on the part of this man, pretending to have been elected 
 governor of the State, an inciting to the.se very atrocities to which I 
 havereferred. Suppose Governor Allen, of Ohio,orsome other governor, 
 should in the face of an election, during a heated canvass, make a 
 suggestion in reference to his o]iponents or tho.se who were organiz- 
 ing the opposition party, endeavoring to prevail in the election, that 
 it would be better if they could be hung or made away with or got 
 out of the way, there were too many of them ; how would the people 
 of Ohio and the whole North recoil with horror at such a suggestion ! 
 We have been so accastomed to this Wiiite-League ruftianism in the 
 South that we look on these things almost with indilference when 
 they occur there. 
 
 Here is the testimony of the editor of the Caucasian, a violent, 
 outspoken White-League editor, in which he makes few conceal- 
 ments : 
 
 Xew Orleans, Febiiiary 5. 
 
 In the cross-examination of Mr. Hunter, the editor of the Caucasian, before the 
 congressional committee yesterday, Mr. Fkye read several extracts from that 
 paper and asked witness if such extreme ideas were his opinions, and he replied in 
 the aiflrmative. Witness said, "My associate editor i)artieip;ited in the Grant 
 Parish massacre: the republican newsjiaper was mobbed and material destroyed; 
 the persons who did it were employes of the democratic newspaper ; my father, R. 
 Hunter, is a last-ditch democrat." The letternow produced stating that there was 
 intimidation of men in Kapides Pari.sh at the election is in the handwritiug of K. 
 A. Hunter, who being present, and stating that the letter was private and not in- 
 tended for publication, Mr. Fkye withcirew it. 
 
 To Mr. Hoar. We were prepared with force if it was necessary to seat our can- 
 didates — 
 
 I suppose he refers to the Legislature — 
 
 if the police had not int-erfered we should have left the members to settle it them- 
 selves ; if the police had intei-fered and the United StJit<s troops liad not been 
 present there would have been somebody hurt; on the 4th of .lanuary I was pre- 
 pared myself to come down with ten or twelve armed men to jirotect our members 
 in their rights as we considered them ; I had been througli tlie war, and for myself 
 could hold my own ; fifty-nine colored men were killed at Colfax and two white 
 men died; the Caucasian praised the men who took jiart in the Colfax massacre ; I 
 approved of it. as moat of uur people did; mv paper counseled resistance to United 
 
 3 s 
 
34 
 
 states troops in a certain emergency ; had not the Colfax affiiir ended as it did, not 
 less than a thousand niggers would have been killed later. 
 
 He says : 
 
 I approved of the Colfax massacre, as did most of our people. 
 
 Should any republican Senator on tliis floor say that these scenes 
 of violence, the Colfax massacre, the Coushatta affaii-, the killing of 
 fifty or one hundred men at Vicksburgh the other day, were ap- 
 proved by most of the southern people or most of the people of Louisi- 
 ana, we should be accused with open throats of slandering the south- 
 ern people ; but here their own spokesman says most of our people 
 approved of this thing — approved of these bloody deeds. 
 
 These were the means thus referred to, the suppression of registra- 
 tion, the suppression of voting, and the murdering of the political 
 rights of a party in the State, and that the majority party, as is 
 obvious; for if it was not a majority, there would be no necessity for 
 the use of such meaus ; these means being iu use, Senators boast of 
 the election of men to the Legislature by means like these. They 
 say, "O, well, notwithstanding all you say, these five meu who were 
 not returned by the returning board were elected ; and if they had 
 counted in others avIio were elected, we would have had an unques- 
 tionable majority even without the five." If you will kill ofif all the 
 republicans, white and black, of course you will have a majority ; 
 but I say it is not by means like these that legislative bodies are to 
 be elected, but such means as these poison the very fountain of the 
 law-making power; it becomes the will of a mob, an armed mob, 
 a ruthless, cruel mob, a mob as cruel as that which dominated in the 
 Reign of Terror in France, and without the regularity which that 
 had. The principle of Marjna Charta, away back in the time of King 
 John, in 1215, protests against proceedings like these. In article 39 
 of the Great Charter signed at Runnymede, on the 18th of June, 
 1215, by ".John, by the grace of God King of England, Lord of Ire- 
 land, Duke of Normandy, Aquitaine, and Count of Anjou," iu the pres- 
 ence of the " Army of God and Holy Church," it was promised. 
 
 39. No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or dis.seizod, or outlawed, or ban- 
 ished, or any ways de^stroyed, nor will wo pass upon him, nor will we send upon 
 him, unless by the lawful judginent of his peers, or by the law of the land. 
 
 " Shall not be destroyed from the land !" What are you doing but 
 destroying men from the land in Louisiana, destroying men of one 
 political sentiment for their political sentiments? Is there anything 
 in civilization, anything in the laws sanctioned by the public judg- 
 ment of mankind since the world emerged from barbarism, that does 
 not protest against these deeds iu Louisiana ? 
 
 The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. Howe in the chair.) The Sena- 
 tor will suspend until the Chair receives a message from the House 
 of Representatives. 
 
 Mr. SARGENT. Certainly. 
 
 DEATn OF HON. SAMUEL HOOPEK. 
 
 A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. McPherson, 
 itij Clerk, communicated to the St>nat-e int-elligence of the death of 
 Hon. Samuel Hoopeij, late a member of the House from the State of 
 Massachusetts, and transmitted the resolutions of the House thereon. 
 
 [The Senate, out of respect to the memory of Mr. Hooper, there- 
 upon adjourned.] 
 
35 
 
 Ml". SARC4ENT. Mr. President, at the cooclusiou of my remarks 
 yesterday I was eudeavorinji to 8how the viiidictivene.ss of the White 
 Leagues and their cruel o])erations in Louisiana. I desire to show that 
 that vindictiveness is against repul)licans, white as well as colored, 
 and native as well as northern ; and to this point I cite the testimony 
 of E. L. Pierson, who before the House committee testified to intim- 
 idation, murders, &c., in his pai'ish, during which he recounted the 
 attempt upon his life, first stating that he lived in Natchitoches since 
 boyhood and that formerly his ])()liti(S were democratic, but prior to 
 the last election he was a republican ; that for his change of senti- 
 ment he was ostracized even by a resolution adopted at a public meet- 
 ing; that he came there ; was appointed by Kellogg judge of the par- 
 ish and returned, and Avas met within sixteen miles of his own home 
 and told not to go home ; he did go, and a number of his friends there 
 told him not to attempt to discharge the functions of his office, that 
 his life wiis in danger because of his being a republican. On going to 
 his office next day he learned that his life would be attempted, and 
 received a note from his wife asking him to come home ; then his wife 
 came, and he went ; that his sister told him two armed men were 
 lurking about the place, as she guessed, to take his life ; that forty 
 armed men were in town, and that she heard these two swear that 
 they came there to kill him, and that he should not sit as judge; soon 
 after that the committee of seventy held a meeting and sent a com- 
 mittee to his house to demand of him that he sign a written agree- 
 ment not to take part in tlie coming campaign, which he declined do- 
 ing, whereupon one of the committee pulled out his watch and told him 
 that he had half an hour in which to sign a paper; that he refused, toll- 
 ing them if they meant to assassinate him to do it at his office or un the 
 street, and to spare his family ft'om witnessing the murder. That 
 during the campaign he was insulted time and again ; when he went 
 to make a speech men congregated with bowie-knives in sight, but on 
 the approach of a company of cavalry they secreted their arms. 
 There was not, continued witness, a fair registration in the parish ; 
 republicans were prevented from taking an active part in the cam- 
 paign; a mass meeting was held, and from that ac^)mmittee was sent 
 to call for the resignations of the parish officers, and threats were 
 made to hang one of them. He then recounted the attempts made to 
 take his life in the night ; the votes were being counted when he wa.s 
 retracked to the court-house ; reached his home and was kept there a 
 week, fearing to leave lest his life be taken ; finally escaped, but 
 learned that two Texas desperadoes had resolved to take his life. 
 
 He testifies further to the same effect, but this I detail to show that 
 a white resident from boyhood in that country, simply for being a 
 republican, is harassed and threatened with murder to deter him 
 from ordinary political action. But I ask why is there this general 
 denunciation of norther u men in the South? Have not our people a 
 right to move from State to State ? Have they not a right to carry 
 their political principles? The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Gordon] 
 denies that there is contempt and ostracism of northern republicans 
 in Georgia, and as a proof he cites a telegram from a man who says 
 he is treated better than he deserves. A true northern gentleman 
 would not be likely to use such an expression. It sounds like those 
 who — 
 
 Crook the pregnant hingwf of the knee, 
 
 Where thrift may follow fawning. 
 
 But by a mode or trick of expression the Senator betrayed the ac- 
 customed contempt of northern men entertained in his region by men 
 
36 
 
 of his iiolitica'l principles by speaking in his remarks of "a northern 
 man but a gentleman." To his telegrams I cite a speech of his col- 
 league [Mr. Norwood] last summer in the theater at Savannah, 
 which is said to have " excited the admiration and sympathy of his 
 audience." The Senator before that appreciative audience delivered 
 himself of sentiments like these : 
 
 "When driven by the fiigidity of social ostracism from the North, he flies with 
 mai".'elous instiuct to the torrid and unctuous embrace of his African mates and 
 peers among the swamps of our southern shore. As the crane fills his ciaw, so this 
 creature fills his bag for the flight ; and as the crane, when the days grow hot, 
 flaps his wings, and, screaming through the air, returns to the Korth ; so this ill- 
 omened biped, when times become warm in the South — 
 
 But, sir, his colleague says times do not become warm in the South 
 for these northern men, these republicans, these carpet-baggers — 
 
 when times become warm in the South, gathers up his legs and flying with 
 screams and shrieks away, perches on the wooden head of the figure of justice, 
 commonly known as the Attorney-General, and drowns the air with ci-oakiugs 
 about southern outrage. 
 
 * * * * * if if 
 
 His shibboleth is "the republican party." 
 
 O no ! there is no ostracism of republicans ! 
 
 Prom that party he sprang as naturally as maggots from putrefaction. His re- 
 lation to that party is that of pimp to a bawd, for his meretricious service is re- 
 warded in proportion to the number of innocent negro victims he inveigles to gratify 
 its lust for power. Like "Warn ba and Gerth, he never travels without wearing his 
 master's collar; and he is equally content whether turned loose to chase like a 
 sleuth-hound the monarch of southern soil, or called by a snap of the fingers to eat 
 the garbage of his party. His collai' is his paasport to "roam at large — 
 
 That is the collar of republicanism — 
 
 and it matters not with what persistence he may break into a southern gentle- 
 man's close, his master will not permit him to be muzzled, for he is "the ox that 
 treadeth out the com " as well as "the ass that knoweth his master's crib. " 
 
 Mr, NORWOOD rose. 
 
 Mr. SARGENT. I will yield for a question, not for a speech. 
 
 Mr, NORWOOD, A request, not a question. 
 
 Mr. SARGENT. Well, sir, what is it ? 
 
 Mr. NORWOOD. It is this : that the honorable Senator will not 
 garble, but give the whole. 
 
 Mr. SARGENT. I have read two long extracts from this speech, 
 and what I have selected is a fair expression of the spirit of the whole ; 
 and probably the man was in the audience who telegraphed to the 
 colleague of the Senator that he was treated in the South better than 
 he deserved, because what he deserved I presume he got from the 
 teachings of the Senator from Georgia whom I address, from whom 
 he learned that opprobrium, that witty, I confess, but stinging in- 
 sult is poured upon the heads of northern men without discrimina- 
 tion. The Senator by reading it now all the way through will find no 
 line drawn ; he cau find not one word drawing a distinction between 
 the gentleman who telegraphed to his colleague and any gentleman 
 who might have sat by his side in that audience or any other north- 
 ern man residing at the South. 
 
 Mr. NORWOOD. What do you refer to ? 
 
 Mr. SARGENT. The gentleman's colleague cited a telegram of a 
 northern man, who he said was a republicau, to prove that there wa« 
 no social ostracism of republicans in Georgia, and this telegram said 
 he was treated better than he deserved — a remark that I say a north- 
 ern gentleman would not be likely to use. There is this bitterness, 
 which is appreciated in such audiences as that assembledin Savannah, 
 created by the speech of my friend from Georgia. There is this con- 
 
37 
 
 tiunal contempt poured out on northern men. They are compared to 
 beasts of prey and birds of prey; they are men of foul hiats ; they are 
 men who come to eat up the South. I ask again, has not a northern 
 man a right to go to any part of the South that he sees tit, there to 
 locate, to carry on business, ay to run for office if he sees fit, to carry 
 his political principles there, to enjoy them without being condemned 
 and insulted on account of the exercise of that preference '? That it 
 is not the northern man merely, but the republican that is objected 
 to, is evident from the case of Gilbert A. Walker, who went from 
 Chicago down to Virginia after the war, and who was there elected 
 governor of the State and has been subsequently seut by the demo- 
 cratic party to Congress; and the New York Herald says of him that 
 he is the right kind of a carpet-bagger. The difterence is that he is 
 a democratic carpet-bagger. It is the republican that is objected to. 
 The Constitution of the United States, article 4, section 2, says that — 
 
 The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunitiea of 
 citizens in the several States. 
 
 Is there not this right of intercommunication through travel and 
 residence and the right of political opinion ? In the old slavery 
 days a northern man who went there and was not a democrat, and a 
 pro-slavery one at that, was called an abolitionist, and he was ignored, 
 ostracized by polite society, persecuted and stoned by the rabble. 
 That has passed away with slavery, and the man who goes there 
 now is a carpet-bagger who is subjected to these insults, these abuses, 
 these injuries. 
 
 The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Gordon] talks of the "vials of 
 hate poured out in this debate." It is untrue. 
 
 Mr. NORWOOD. I want to make oue remark, with the Senator's 
 permission. 
 
 Mr. SARGENT. Well. 
 
 Mr. NORWOOD. The remarks there apply to certain classes of 
 men who are described in a previous part of the remarks I made. 
 They do not apply and were not intended to apply to gentlemen like 
 Mr. Morrill who is not a democratic carpet-bagger, but is a repub- 
 lican. That was the reason that I asked that the former portion of 
 these remarks should be read, as they explain what follows. 
 
 Mr. SARGENT. I have no objection to this whole thing going into 
 my speech ; but I do not see fit to take up my time by reading it. I 
 will accommodate the Senator, who seems to be somewhat pleased 
 with his eft'ort at the Savannah theater, and for which I compliment 
 him, by reading the further part of it to which he refers as explana- 
 tory, and it may then be seen that in every line of the part he refers 
 to, not merely in that which I have quoted, though I quoted a fair 
 specimen, but that in every line of it there breathes a spirit of 
 hatred and contempt of northern men and northern republicans. 
 You may disguise it as you choose ; you may say republicans have no 
 business to run for office, or they come down there and try to or- 
 ganize the blacks in behalf of republican principles and therefore 
 you despise them. I say they have a right to do those very things, 
 and I going from California have as much right to go to Georgia 
 and live there a year and run for office or to associate together men 
 of my political opinions, or make speeches on the stump, or publish 
 newspapers and not have them thl-own into the river, and not be 
 abused in my own person or my property destroyed or I insulted in pri- 
 vate or before public audiences in the manner in which northern 
 men without distinction, unless they are democrats, are insulted by 
 that speech made by the Senator in Savannah. The Senator insists 
 
38 
 
 that the introductory remarks made by him at Savannah will ex- 
 plain his meaning more fully than the extracts I have read. I will 
 read the part of his speech entire that precedes the first extract I 
 quoted from it. It is as follows : 
 
 The reconstruction acts have wrought immeasurable evils, but perhaps the 
 {rreatest of all is the production of the carpet-bagger. I have great admiiation for 
 the^enius who first used that word, carpet-bagger. What can be more expressive ? 
 His like the world has never seen, from the days of Cain, or of the forty thieves in 
 the fabled time of All Baba. Like the wind he blows, and we hear the sound 
 thereof, but no man knoweth whence he cometh or whither he goeth. 
 
 Natural historians will be in doubt how to class him. Ornithologists will claiiu 
 him, because in many respects he is a bird of prey. He lives only on corruption 
 and takes his flight as soon as the carcass is picked. In other particulars he resem- 
 bles the migratory crane. 
 
 What such speeches mean, and how they operate, is in evidence- 
 from many sources. The Zion's Herald is the organ of the Methodisb 
 Church of Now England, a non-partisan, moderate paper, and its re- 
 lation of the experience of the " carpet-bag " ministers of its church 
 is worthy of citation. It recently said : 
 
 While southern politicians, ministers, and laymen can express their sentiments, 
 howeverobnoxious they are to the convictions oi northern men, with the utmost free- 
 dom, in the pulpit, in the railroad car, in the hotel, on the corners of the street, with 
 great demonstrations of earnestness and violent denunciations even of otlier.s hold- 
 ing different views, the most guarded utterances made by northern men at the South, 
 that can be distorted into opposition to prevailing sentiments, are met with impeiti- 
 nentsneersor social ostracisms; and evei-y forai of personal and business opposition 
 is put into requisition to drive away anyone daring thus to utter, in a perfectly gen- 
 tlemanly way, an honest conviction. The eminent southern ministers that visited 
 the northern camp-meeting last summer were shown every possible attention, and 
 allotted evei'y honorable opportunity to addi-e.ss our largest audiences. They were 
 frank in the expression of their own sentiments, courteous indeed, but still not 
 guarding severely their speech in social intercourse. No one thought of criticising 
 the freedom of those eloquent ,ii'uests. Has one of them, however, in southern 
 prints attempted to secure a like return of courtesy for our eminent northern min- 
 isters who may providentially visit the South, or suggested tliatthe pastors of the 
 Methodist Ejiiscopal Church South should ]>ay tlie respect to their northern brethren 
 due to their otlice, their character, and tin- fraternal attenti(msthey liave vouchsafed 
 to visitors from the Soutli ? Our most cultivated men, high in office, renowned for tal- 
 ent, accomplished scliolars, men marked for their gentle adilress, enter cities and 
 large towns where several southern ministers have clmrches, but not a man of them, 
 although the fact is publicly known of their presence, offers a nod of recofjnition 
 or protfers the slightest Cliristiaii coiirtesy. What is the significance of this! And 
 this is not true suuply of individual ministers who liave been outspoken in their 
 views upon southern sentiiiniits, luit of our mostcouservative, fraternal, and peace- 
 seeking men. There are no cuiisiiiouous instances i-ecorded where this unfratemal 
 policy nas been even temixirarily iuten-upted. There have been no Round Lake 
 camp-meetings in the Soutliem States. 
 
 The most singular fact is the apparent unconsciousness of the existence of this 
 hateful, unmanly, and unchi-istian temper on the part of southei'n men, and the 
 evident feeling of abuse which they manifest when nortlieni persons infer and_ 
 state that there is any lack of true courtesy or manly generosity among the bettei' 
 portion of the .southern communities. There is no doubt that exaggerated and 
 false statements have been made ; and there is also no doubt that one-half of the 
 personal and pecuniary injury to northern business men, the social and most offen- 
 sive ostracism and positive violence and brutal abuse in portions of the South and 
 Southwestern States has never been told. 
 
 The Senator's colleague [Mr. Gordon] talked about "vials of hate 
 poured out " by us in this debate. It is entirely untrue, and calcu- 
 lated to mislead the people of his State. The speech was intended 
 for circulation in Georgia rather than the ear of the Senate, as was 
 evident by the large number of extracts which the Senator said he 
 would not ask to be read but have put in his speech. If it was in- 
 tended to influence the Senate, they .should all have been read in the 
 hearing of the Senate; but pages were put in without any other 
 effect except to figure in tlic Rix'OiiD and go to his own people. 
 
39 
 
 There have been no evineuces of hate hero. I myself yestei'dayj 
 although speaking of grave matters and speaking with earnestuess, 
 spoke kindly in every instance, and I desire to do so. But he liolds up 
 to the Senate of the United States the republicans here in an unfa- 
 vorable and untrue light when he talks about our pouring out the 
 vials of hate on the Senator or any of his colleagues. We have pic- 
 tured the injustice in the South and the barbarism there, and asked for 
 .justice, peace, and order. Eut I ask Senators to see how the hate of 
 that audience at Savannah was stirred up indiscriminately against 
 northern republicans going to the South. The Senator from Georgia 
 [Mr. Gordon] assumes that because some one speaks of the kindness 
 of the republican party during the jiast years and now in amnesty 
 measures, a reproach is cast on the rebels. The debate has been free 
 from such reproaches ; but it is well not to open that subject. 
 
 The Senator justifies those who embarked in the rebellion on the 
 ground tliat they thought they were right. I presume they so 
 thought, but that does not prove that they were right or lessen the 
 magnanimity of the Government in forgiving tliem. Tlie high priests 
 who procured the crucitixion of Christ and the peojde who asked the 
 release of Barabbas probably thought they were right. Those who 
 tolled the bell of Saint Bartholomew and those who answered its 
 call ; the authors of the Sicilian vespers ; those who drenched Savoy 
 with blood ; Torquemada watching the victims of the Inquisition on 
 the rack, probably all thought they were right. Scroggs and Jeffreys 
 may have tliought they were right at the bloody assizes. The authors 
 of the massacre of Glencoe may have thought they were right. The 
 assassin of William the Silent may as much have thought he was 
 ri^ht as did Wilkes Booth when he assassinated President Lincoln. 
 But the enlightened judgment of mankind condemns them ; and it 
 will not do for those who rebelled against the best Government on 
 earth to extend slavery, who drew the death line at Andersonville, 
 who starved Unnm soldiers at Belle Isle and Salisbury and assassin- 
 ated a President of the United States, the noblest and most loving 
 heart of the ages, to recall these deeds in other than a sorrowful 
 spirit. 
 
 But I am digressing. I was speaking of the condition of Louisi- 
 ana and of the events that in panoramic succession led up to the 
 seizure of the House of Representatives by a faction on the 4th of 
 January. A little over a year ago an unprovoked massacre of negroes 
 took place in Grant Parish, where eighty to one hundred negroes 
 were killed in cold blood by a man with McEnery's commission in 
 his pocket. Go back still further. In 1H66 a peaceable convention 
 assembled at New Orleans for the purpose of proposing amendments 
 to the constitution of the State, were jirevented from doing business 
 by force, and some two hundred men were killed and wounded in an 
 hour. Within sixty days of the yiresidential election of 1868 some 
 two thousand men were killed for their political opinions. Such 
 scenes as these — and I give but samples — led uji to the Penn insur- 
 ]'ection ; so that the seizure of the legislative hall was but an incident 
 to be plead with a (oniinuando. Under these circumstances, with 
 these siirrouudings, the President did right to employ the military to 
 discharge his high constitutional obligation, and the action of the 
 military was legal and commendable. 
 
 Democratic Senators say that the root of all the troubles in Louisi- 
 ana is the presence of the military and the proper impatience of the 
 people against the Kellogg government. Let us see. It may arise 
 from the mercurial and intolerant character of the white men there. 
 
40 
 
 Such sfi'iies Ions antedate the war or the presence of carpet-baggers. 
 Intiuiidation aud bloodshed at the polls lu Louisiana are no new 
 things. Charles Gayarr6 is entitled to eminence as a historian of 
 Louisiana. On page 679 of his work he i)ubli8hes the following facts 
 under date of 1856 : 
 
 In January the official relations of Governor Hobert with the State terminated- 
 In his valedictory message he referred with deep mortiflcation to the scenes of in" 
 timidation, violence, and bloodshed which had marked the late general elections in 
 New Orleans — 
 
 There were no republicans there then, no carpet-baggers, none of 
 these birds and beasts which the Senator from Georgia talked so 
 spitefully about to the people of Savannah — 
 
 He said that the repetition of such outrages would tarnish onr character and sink 
 us to the level of the anarcliical governments of Spanish America ; that before 
 the occurrence of those 'great public crimes," the hideous deformitv of which he 
 could not describe, aud wliich were committed with impiuiity in midday light, and 
 in the presence of liuudreds of persons, no one could liave admitted even the possi- 
 bility that a bloodthirsty mob could have contemplated to overawe any portion of 
 the people of this State in the exercise of their most valuable rights, "but that 
 what would then have been denied even as a i)ossibility is now a historical fact." 
 
 Gayarre is talking about matters that occurred in 1856, not about 
 scenes that occurred in 1872- 74— but how very close the parallel — 
 and he quotes from a governor of the State and an executive message. 
 Governor Wickliffe, succeeding Governor Hebert, after lamenting 
 the mismanagement and recklessness of administration, in his message 
 to the Legislature in 1857 he commented on this mob violence. 
 
 He said: 
 
 It is well known that at the two last general elections many of the streets and 
 approaches to the polls weie completely in the hands of organized ruffians — 
 
 How much that sounds like " banditti" — 
 who committed acts of violence on multitudes of our naturalized fellow-citizens who 
 dared venture to exercise the right of sutlrago. Thus nearly one-third of the reg- 
 istered voters of New Orleans have been deterred from exercising their highest and 
 most sacred prerogative. 
 
 Are we not to be believed when we say that by similar scenes re- 
 cently occurring one-third of the people of New Orleans and Louisi- 
 ana are deprived of their rights and twenty thousand men kept away 
 from the polls ? 
 
 The expression of such elections is an open and palpable fraud on the people, 
 and I recommend you to adopt such measures as shall effectually prevent the true 
 will of the majority from being totally silenced. 
 
 And it is for the results of just such frauds, more recently en- 
 acted, that the democratic party are contending. They must have 
 the fruits ; what matters it if men were kept away from the polls by 
 bloody crimes like those stigmatized by Governor Wicklifl'e, the work 
 of " organized ruffians," they claim to be allowed to pack a Legis- 
 lature by such means ? Wickliti'e is not more exidicit than ISIajor 
 Merrill in his recent testimony before the congressional committee : 
 
 I have been stationed in Louisiana since October, part of the time in New Or- 
 leans; have been in Shnve]«>rt ; tin- Jicd River country is in a deplmablc condi- 
 tion, and without tlie incstiirc of troops there is no telling what would li;ipi)en; 
 colored men are teriiticd and are constantly in fear of violence; white i'e])ul)lican8 
 are ostracized that I kuow of ; there was no free expression of political views, and 
 the control was in the hands of a few war leaders of the conservative or White 
 League party ; they would like to overtlirow the State government ; there is an- 
 tagonism to equal iigiits; an impartial election could not have been lield in that 
 country; seveial massacres have liad the etfect to intimidate the colored men; 
 weeks and weeks ;ifter tiie Coushatta massacre colored men did not dare to remain 
 at their homes at night, and I think that no free or fair election could have been 
 held in Louisiana; white republicans are severely ostracized ; I have no personal 
 knowledge of the Coushatta murders; wlien I visited Shreveport there was but" 
 
41 
 
 little semblanco of law ; there was a volunteer police, but I liad no authority to 
 a<;t; it would uot be safe for a atrauser to travel through the Kert Kiver country 
 aud declare himself a republican ; an ofhee waH vacant in that wection, and two gen - 
 tlemen who conversed with me about it stated they would not dare accept a 
 commission ; 1 think that the people generally consider that if a man is a republi- 
 can he can have no integrity ; it would make no difference how honest republican 
 officials might be, they would not be respected in oflice or out; I am engaged iu 
 making a rt<port of all the massacres and political murders in Louisiana since 1866 ; 
 in numerous instances colonid men were deterred from voting because of the fear 
 engendered by massacres ; I do not know of a single instance where a colored man 
 voluntarily voted the democratic ticket ; I do not believe a republi<'an speaker 
 would have been tolerated ; in some instances he might have got half through, but 
 under most circumstances he would have been drawn into a quarrel had he tried 
 to avoid it. 
 
 It appears that in 1856 and previous years corruption existed at tlie 
 polls at New Orleans as now, and the historian draws a melancholy 
 picture of it-s effects. On page 684 he say : 
 
 This was the main cause which, by producing intense disgust, went much fur- 
 ther than the fear of assa-ssination to prevent honest citizens from resorting to 
 the ballot-box. They knew all our elections to have been so hopelessly fraudulent 
 that it was di8grace:ful to particiiiate in them. They had retired from the politi- 
 cal arena in sullen despair. 
 
 It is well to understand this. The lawless class-hate that assailed 
 naturalized citizens at that time, assassinated them, kept them away 
 from the polls, is now transferred to republicans, white and black. 
 Force and fraud had such play that at the election where Kellogg 
 and McEuery were candidates republicans practically could not vote, 
 and any result declared in favor of McP^nery would have been a gigan- 
 tic fraud, a denial to the people of Louisiana of their rights. At the 
 election in 1868 when Grant was a candidate the returns showed that 
 in many parishes General Grant did not get even one vote, in other 
 parishes he got two, in other parishes iive, in others ten votes ; but 
 the important fact is that numerous murders, numbering as reported 
 by a congressional committee over two thousand killed and wounded, 
 had produced terror which bet ween May and November made a change 
 of seventy-three thousand votes. 
 
 I ask if history is not reproducing itself in Louisiana? The same 
 assassination and terrorism existed at the last election, di'iving men 
 to conceal in the woods, to keep away from the polls. Everybody 
 knows that a fair election would have elected a Legislature over- 
 whelmingly republican. 
 
 In the face of such facts and of the scenes at Vicksburgh and else- 
 where the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Gordon"] asks " was there 
 «ver such provocation as that of the South since the war ?" How 
 the blood-thirsty black chickens persecute the White League fox t 
 Provocation! by general pardon, by restoration to rights, by admit- 
 ting to Congress fraternally even those who fought to destroy the 
 Unibn. Provocation ! because we condemn murder, because we ask 
 for mercy to the helpless, because we insist on the liberty to live, 
 labor, and enjoy the rights of a citizen of every man within your bor- 
 ders ! 
 
 But he says we interfere between capital and labor. It was a maxim 
 of slavery that capital should own labor. If the South have accepted 
 the results of the war as the Senator insists they have, they have ac- 
 cepted emancii)ation. That and its results we insist on and will do so. 
 
 Let us see what arrarrgements between capital and labor we have 
 interfered with, and how kindly southern capital provides for labor. 
 I have here the laws which were passed by the States of the South 
 when they first reassumed political power with reference to the colored 
 people, declaring that even an insolent gesture of a black man to- 
 
42 
 
 ward a white should be punished by imprisonment, aud the per- 
 son could be sold from his prison to labor. I will not take up time to 
 read these. They are to a certain extent familiar to the country. 
 Congress intervened on account of the barbarism which was being 
 exercised toward the blacks by capital, reducing them to a condition 
 of slavery little better than that from which we had redeemed them. 
 But in Arkansas recently, under their reconstructed constitution and 
 Legislature, they are passing just such laws again. Capital, which it 
 is said we interfere with, dominating in Arkansas, ay, and in 
 North Carolina, too, is passing these very vagrant laws whereby men 
 can be sold for not fulfilling a contract for labor, whereby they can. 
 be arrested on various pretenses when they are not engaged in reg- 
 ular employment, whereby traps are continually set for their feet, the 
 penalty being all the time to transfer the possession of their jjersons 
 to white men who will buy them for that purpose. Furthermore, 
 they are passing laws that the stealing of two dollars shall be grand 
 larcenj'^, punishable as a felony, and are making all the county jails 
 branch State prisons, because felony disfranchises the person who is 
 guilty of it unless he is pardoned ; and by these means they can suc- 
 ceed step by step until they have totally disfranchised the colored 
 men in the South. The "second sober thought'' of the South, now 
 that they are getting the power into their own hands again, is in ac- 
 cordance with that which they had at first when they emerged from 
 the rebellion. 
 
 Mr. RANSOM rose. 
 
 Mr. SARGENT. The Senator shall hear enough about North Caro- 
 lina if he will allow me to proceed. I have not done with it. 
 
 The democratic Legislature recently assembled and now in session 
 in North Carolina passed a new charter for the city of Wilmington, 
 in which they divided the city into three wards, and gerrymandered 
 it as follows : One ward, containing two hundred and fifty voters, elects 
 two aldermen ; one ward, containing three hundred voters, elects 
 Ihi'ee aldermen; and the rest of the city, containing thirty-one hun- 
 dred voters, elects three aldermen. By great ingenuity in running 
 lines in the blocks the two wards containing two hundred and fifty 
 and three hundred voters, respectively, elect six aldermen, while the 
 thirty-one hundi'ed voters only elect three. The democratic member 
 from that district published a letter in the Republican recently de- 
 feuding this action on the ground that it gave a better representation 
 to property. That is the very point. That is modern democracy. 
 That is to say, the jackass now, using Franklin's illustration, is to be 
 recognized as the voter and not the man ; that is to say, the poor and 
 the humble are not to have equal rights in representation on this 
 floor and in the other House, in legislative bodies, or municipal coun- 
 ciLs, and other places. Representation is to be taken away from the 
 poor, and by a system of ai-istocratic laws put into the hands of 
 property men. O, democracy, where is thy blush ! Where is the 
 democrat who can stand up and not blush with very shame at the 
 idea that these things are done in its uamef Trample down the 
 poor and humble, aud dejirive the freeman of his rights under Ameri- 
 can institutions! 
 
 Abillis pending in the North Carolina Legislature, reported favor- 
 ably from a committee, which will iindoubtedly pass, which makes 
 it a misdemeanor for any agricultural laborer to violate his contract 
 with his employer. This even applies to minors, and its etiect and 
 intention is to establish a system of peonage. 
 
 The question is now pending before the Legislature of calling a 
 
43 
 
 constitutional convention, its object being to overthrow the present 
 State eonstitntiou. This provision was submitted to the people by 
 the democratic Legislature three years ago, and defeated by a large 
 popular vote; but now, having a two-thirds majority in the Legisla- 
 ture, they think they can call a convention without submitting it to 
 the people ; and if they do not do so, it will only be because they are 
 deterred by the admonitions of their friends here in Congress. A 
 cattcus was lately held by the democratic members of the Legislature 
 at Raleigh in reference to this convention matter, and a very large 
 majority were in favor of calling a convention. Communications 
 were received from democratic members of Congress imploring them 
 not to do so at this time, that they could wait and accomplish all 
 they wish by and by. Therefore their not acting at this time is 
 merely a question of policy. 
 
 Mr. RANSOM. Mr. President 
 
 Mr. SARGENT. I will yield for a moment only. 
 
 Mr. RANSOM. Only one word. I desire to say in reference to the- 
 Senator's statement that he is entirely mistaken. 
 
 Mr. SARGENT. I hear the Senator's statement ; but I have it on 
 the very best authority. I have been extremely careful in my state- 
 ment. 
 
 Mr. RANSOM. The Senator cannot have it on as good authority 
 as the Senator who now speaks, because 1 know about it. 
 
 Mr. SARGENT. I have a very high respect for the Senator. Does 
 he tell me tliat there has been no ettbrt to call a convention for the- 
 purpose of changing the constitution of the State? 
 
 Mr. RANSOM. It has been mooted in North Carolina and is now 
 mooted 
 
 Mr. SARGENT. Does the Senator say it has not been opposed by 
 democratic members here ? 
 
 Mr. RANSOM. 1 say that there has been and is now a movement 
 in North Carolina to call a convention of the people to alter the 
 present constitution of the State, but there has been no imploring 
 dispatch sent by the North Carolina democratic delegation to a caucus 
 of the democratic party not to do that act. The delegation have in- 
 formed their friends in North Carolina of the state oif opinion here, 
 but they have been particular to do nothing else. But let mo say to 
 the Senator that if that convention is called and a new constitution 
 is adopted, the new constitution will conform in all respects to the 
 Constitution of the United States, and sacredly and tenderly respect 
 the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments. 
 
 Mr. SARGENT. I trust the Senator is not mistaken in that. If, 
 however, under the same influences and the same class of people, it 
 should happen to turn out as the constitution of Arkansas, and be 
 changed in the same way as it was in Arkansas, by fraud and vio- 
 lence, subverting the rights of the people instead of protecting them, 
 I should not be at all surprised. • 
 
 Mr. RANSOM. I protest against any such apprehensions being 
 expressed by the Senator from California in reference to North Caro- 
 lina. 
 
 Mr. SARGENT. Patrick Henry once said that he had no light for 
 his feet except the lamp of experience. I have no opportunity to 
 ^udge of southern affairs except by that which I see transpiring be- 
 fore my eyes every day. I see these things going on. I see constitu- 
 tions overthrown. State governments subverted, sometimes by vio- 
 lence and force and fraud, as in Louisiana, sometimes by trick, by 
 violation of the State constitution, and by force also, as in Arkansas^ 
 
44 
 
 These things are occurring in these very reconstructed States; and 
 although I have a very high respect for the Senator, I need sortie- 
 thing stronger than his guarantee to believe that these things now 
 occurring are not likely to be repeated, and in his own State. 
 
 Horace Greeley was the nominee for President of the democratic 
 party at the last presidential election, and I should like to show the 
 Senator from North Carolina how well he understood the people of 
 his section. I suppose I am quoting from democratic authority ; at 
 any rate he was indorsed by the Senator's party. He said in 1871, 
 not long before his nomination : 
 
 It (the democratic party) -would come into power with the chagrin, the wrath, 
 the mortification of ten bitter years to impel and guide its steps. It wouhl devote 
 itself to t<aking olf or reducing tax after tax until the Treasury was deprived of 
 the means of pajang interest on the national debt, and would hail the tidings of 
 national bankruptcy with unalloyed gladness and unconcealed exultation. What- 
 ever chastisement may be deserved by our national sins, we must hope that this dis- 
 gi-ace and humiliation will be spared us. Tlie democratic party of to-day is simply 
 the rebellion seeking to achieve its essential purposes within and through the 
 Union. A victory which does not enable it to put its feet on the necks of the black 
 race seems to the'bulk of its adherents not wortli liaving. It« heart is just where 
 it was when it regarded slavery and Constitution as two names for one thing. It 
 hates the generals loho led the Union annies to victory, and rarely 'inisscs a charice to 
 disparage them — 
 
 Ay, they are not fit to "breathe the air of Heaven " or " the free 
 air of a republic," as has been said on this floor — 
 
 It clings to that exaggerated notion of State rights which makes them the shiehl 
 of all manner of ^vrongs and abuses. It takes counsel of its hates even more than 
 of its aspirations, and will be satisfied with no triumphs that do not result in the expul- 
 sio-n of all active, earnest republicans from the South. 
 
 That which your candidate for President believed in 1871, I have 
 seen evidence day after day down to the time I now speak to believe. 
 
 The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Gordox] dwelt on the necessity to 
 the South of a correct public opinion at the Noi'th, and appealed to 
 public opinion to exonerate him and his section from censure for the 
 things to which I have referred. Public opinion is a two-edged sword, 
 and he has more to fear from it than those who denounce this sys- 
 tem of slavery and the atrocities that lead up to it. There are other 
 appeals coming from the South to public opinion. I have here one 
 in the New Orleans Bulletin published on the 6th of February where 
 they appeal as follows : 
 
 Patriots of the Korth, let the voice of Grant's victims in Louisiana warn you in 
 time. Arm yourselves witliout delay ; baud yourselves together in military array ; 
 organize by States, and have your worthy and trusty leaders chosen. Let those 
 who love liberty know each other, and get used to concerted action. Put aside 
 funds, luunitiiiiis, and stores enough for a prolonged campaign. Be ready when 
 duty demands it to take the field in such numbers as to crush out tyranny before 
 it becomes supreme. Tou can depend upon most of the old soldiers of the armies 
 who fought for the Government and Union if you organize and prepare in due 
 season. Your country, your threatened liberties, and the palpable eucroachment^s, 
 plain intentions of your enemies, 4;all for active preparation. In the name of lib- 
 erty we conjure you to heed this warning and be ready. 
 
 The public opinion of the North is appealed to for another rebel- 
 lion, to engage with the South in overthrowing the constituted 
 authorities of the Government ; but, as I say, this public opinion is 
 a two-edged sword, and the men who fought down the former rebel- 
 lion can be relied upon, they .and their sons, to j)ut down another! 
 
 But these things are the natural outgrowth of democratic policy 
 avowed in grave public documents. The Senator from Delaware, 
 [Mr. B.\YARD,] in a congressional report, amplified and enlarged upon 
 the necessity of excluding colored men from political power. The 
 report is made by Frauk P. Blair, T. F. B.^^yard, S. S. Cox, James B. 
 
45 
 
 Beck, P. Van Tnmip, A. M. Waddell, J. C. Roinxsox, and J. M, 
 Hanks. I will not read at length on account of my desire to close. 
 After going on to state that the phrase used long prior to the war 
 that no government could exist half slavery and half free should be 
 paraphrased, and it was a proposition equally true that no govern- 
 ment could exist half black and half white, and saying that the 
 minds of thinking men are coming to this conclusion, they say : 
 
 Such a state of thiugs — 
 
 This half black and half white political equality, this voting power 
 and right of the negro — 
 
 Such a state of things may h\st as hins as the party shall last wliich had the 
 power and audacity to inaugurate it, and no longer. But whenever that party 
 shall go down — 
 
 Ay, sir, when the republican party shall fail — 
 whenever that party shall go down, as go down it will at some time not long in 
 the future, that will he the end of the political power of the negro among white 
 men on this continent. Men in the frenzy of political passions may shut their 
 eyes to this fact now, hut it will come at any time when the negro shall cease to be 
 a party necessity in the politics of tliis country. 
 
 That is what the republican party accuse the democracy of. They 
 say that is the very tendency of your measures ; that you keep that 
 end steadily in view to destroy the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth 
 amendments of the Constitution ; that you design to re-enslave the 
 African; that you design that all the fruits of the war shall pass 
 away ; and I charge it here on the floor of the Senate that that is the 
 design of the democratic party ; that it is evinced by their reports on 
 the condition of the South that they intend to overthrow all the 
 fi-uits of the war ; that the results of the long struggle which cost 
 hundreds of thousands of lives and hundreds of millions of dollars 
 shall go for naught ; that the blacks shall again be enslaved ; that 
 this black blot shall be again itpon the American escutcheon and an 
 American citizen can no longer hold up a fail' front to heaven and 
 before the nations and say, "Within our broad boundaries there treads 
 not the foot of a slave." That is democratic policy ; and there are 
 the signatures of those Senators and members of the House in a grave 
 public document stating these views openly and fully. 
 
 Will not the cotmtry arouse to these tendencies? Is it possible 
 that the country can sleep when these dangers impend ? What dif- 
 ference does it make about the potty speeches of little stump orators 
 in localities, when before the Congress of the United States in a doc- 
 ument of that gravity so plainly is put forth the avowed design of 
 the party to overthrow the rights which have been secured by the 
 thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amjudments to the Constitution 
 of the United States? 
 
 These operations at the South are all in pursuance of the plan out- 
 lined by this congressional committee. They design to take State 
 by State. Where they cannot grab a whole State at once as in the 
 case of Louisiana and Arkansas, they intend to take a section of it 
 as at Vicksburgh in Mississippi, and to hold it by force and violence. 
 They intend to subvert the State constitutions, to eliminate from 
 them every vestige of right, of freedom of thought and action of 
 colored men, or of anything except pure, unadulterated, old pro- 
 slavery dernocracy. That is their deliberate purpose ; and all the.se 
 operations, all these plans tend to that very thing. I doubt not that 
 that is well understood and is abetted by northern democratic lead- 
 ers. If it were not so, why should we see such documents as this which 
 I have read, where the result is pointed at but with a lack of hope- 
 
46 
 
 fulness not customary to that party they do not think it can be 
 accomplished until the republican party is entirely banished from 
 power. They have started even before the republican party is en- 
 tirely banished from power to work these nefarious endi, and they 
 hope to complete them when they get supreme control. 
 
 I believe that these things are well understood and encouraged by 
 the leaders of the northern democracy, and any farther ulterior pur- 
 poses that there may be on the part of the southern agitators in re- 
 gard to the destruction of the Union of these States, because I find 
 by the history of the rebellion and the circumstances which accom- 
 panied its opening that leading democratic politicians and statesmen 
 were in close communion with the rebellious leaders at that time and 
 encouraged them to retire from the Union. I might quote the letter 
 of Franklin Pierce, a former democratic President of the United 
 States, written on the 6th of January, 1860, nine months before the 
 first State seceded. I might quote also from the language of Keitt 
 in the South Carolina convention where he said they had a right 
 from the assurances which were given by the northern democrats to 
 expect assistance, and that they had been disappointed, and that the 
 northern democi-ats had gone back upon their pledges through a cow- 
 a.rdly fear for their own safety if they had dared themselves to stand 
 up in the face of the Government and the people of the North. I 
 have here an unpublished essay written by a gentleman of Louisi- 
 ana in which, to do him justice, he belabors all parties right lustily. 
 After making a remark which would have fitted very well into some- 
 thing that I said yesterday and which I will first quote, he goes on 
 to speak of this matter. Speaking of the democratic party, he says : 
 
 Mea,surp(l by its o^vn an-ogaiit boasts, it was tbe sole fitting expounder and only 
 faithful defender of the Constitution in its primitive i)urity. There were some, 
 however, who, even in palmy days, contended that by actual measurement it was 
 but a juggling charlataju, "'stickling for the letter of the Constitution with the 
 alFectation of a prude, and abandoning its principles with the effiontery of a 
 prostitute." Whether the boast or the sneer contain the most truth, it is not now 
 pertinent to inquire. 
 
 In 1800 the maxims of state-craft it had cherished through the long years of its 
 jealous rule were repudiated by the popular voice, the reins of government it had 
 grasptvtl in lineal and almost unbroken succession, from Jetier.son to Buchanan, 
 were decisively wrested from it and placed in the hands of a party rcjiresenting 
 new ideas. Whatever its virtues, (and it must have been endowed with many, 
 else how would it have retained its hold upon the popular heart so long,) patience un- 
 der ostracism from the control of public affairs does not appear to have had a place in 
 the catalogue. The southern leaders, maddened by defeat, proclaimed the right 
 of secession, and flew to arms to vindicate it. It was generally believed at the 
 time that large promises of material aid had been given by the northern portion of 
 the democratic brotherhood. If ever given, those promises were redeemed very 
 much after the fashion of Monsieur Parrolles, when he so valiantly undertook to 
 recover the ca])tured drum. After having gulled their impulsive southern allies 
 into " the imminent de^adly breach " they coolly stacked arms ! The more respect- 
 able, keeping up a show of con.sistency t>y a fusillade of negative and diluted sym- 
 pathy ; recruiting the ctmfedei-ate armies' with shadowy battiilions of emotional sub- 
 stitutes in lieu of the active physical aid promised. 
 
 That is even better than Kcitt's speech or Pierce's letter. These 
 things are understood at the North by northern democratic leaders, 
 and I flunk so from many circumstances. Marr headed the mob who 
 demanded the abdication of the State government of Louisiana on 
 the 14th of September. From that bloody field he went to the Man- 
 hattan Club, on December 29, at New York, and there made a speech. 
 Why he should have gone there and then returned to take part iii the 
 subsequent proceexlings, why he found there the sympathizing friends 
 which his operations require<l, mayperhaps beexplained by some one, 
 but I can only draw inferences. In this speech he said : 
 
47 
 
 I am astouisheil that the tliuuders of public iudijination wore not heard, and that 
 the President was not told " Thua far shalt thou go and no farther." 
 
 Observe this was in rofereuce to tbe Peiin iusurrection to overthrow 
 the State goverument, not what took place afterward iu tlie Legisla- 
 ture. 
 
 Yet the telearams from "Washington announce that it is the dotennination of the 
 President to deal with Louisiana with a rough hand; for friends have said be 
 patient; wait a little longer. Well, we have been patient; we have waited, and 
 we have been injured beyond comprehension, except from actual experience. We 
 mean to preserve the public peace as far as it is possible for us to do so. I mean 
 no menace, no threat, when I .say it is the fixed determination of the people of 
 Louisiana to sweep these men from power. 
 
 And by what means they are going to do it we know by his par- 
 ticipation in the massacre of the 14th of September. Not sweep 
 them from power, according to the American sense of the term, bj' a 
 peaceable election, by allowing the will of the people to be expressed 
 through the ballot-box. no, sir; but by mobs, by muskets, and 
 bullets. 
 
 And they will do it, unless they are prevented by the direct interposition of the 
 Toderal soldiers. [Applause.] 
 
 Yes, sir, they meant by violence to subvert the State government. 
 This was on December 29, only a very few days before the event 
 happened in the Legislature on the 4th of January, showing their 
 purpose to overthrow the State government by violence unless the 
 Federal troops interfered to prevent. And then shall it be said that 
 there waa no necessity for the use of the Federal troops ; that the con- 
 stitutional guarantee could not properly be called into exercise when 
 this vaunt was made by this man Marr who headed the just previous 
 insurrection and bore his comjilaints and made his promises to the 
 bosom of his friends of the Manhattan Club f 
 
 I say these are but parts of a concerted plan to conquer State after 
 State. Look at Arkansas. Iu defiance of the provision of the State 
 constitution the government of that State has been overthrown by 
 an illegal convention, officers elected for four years ousted, and the 
 rights of the people prostrated. The Legislature was emptied of 
 republican members by the illegal action of the governor, and his own 
 emissaries put iu as preliminaiy to this work. Thousands of men 
 were disfranchised to elect a new Legislattire, and that Legislature 
 is passing bills as atrocious a^s those to which I have referred. Ter- 
 rorism there suppresses the least murmur of discontent. Baxter 
 found a contest to his right to act as governor before the Legisla- 
 ture. He emptied of his own motion the Legislature of republican 
 members, thirty-three iu the house and several senators, by pretended 
 appointments to office ; and when these appointments were made he 
 declared the seats vacant and ordered a new election. Not remitting 
 the question to the respective houses to ascertain if there were vacan- 
 cies, as was required by the laws of the State, he himself decided that 
 there were vacancies, in violation of law, and ordered an election. He 
 thereby divested the Legislature of the constitutional right to pass 
 upon the qualitications of its own members. He turned out the 
 registrars appointed iu 1872 for two years by aud with the advice 
 and consent of the senate, and put in his own creatures. These 
 registrars conducted the election for vacancies, and he called an 
 extra session, held elsewhere than in the State-house, surrounded the 
 building with troops, and admitted no one except on a military order. 
 There was no quorum present, and yet this illegal assembly admitted 
 the governor's creatures in order to make up a quorum, aud then 
 they proceeded to pas.s a law calling a convention of the people, 
 
48 
 
 altlioush there was no provision in the State constitution of Arkan- 
 sas bywhich such convention could be held. Tlie constitution pro- 
 vided the means of its own amendment by the passage of those 
 amendments through the two houses of the Legislature and sumbit- 
 ting them to the people. All these more th<an forms, the very essence 
 of the right of the people, the right to have their organic law amended 
 only in a constitutional manner, were stricken down by this illegal 
 body by the connivance of the governor of that State. 
 Mr. President, the time has arrived, I suppose — 
 
 FrXERAL OF IIOX. SAMUEL HOOPER. 
 
 The PRESIDENT |)ro tempore. In accordance with the order hereto- 
 fore made the Senate will now proceed to the Hall of tlie House of 
 Representatives to attend tlie funeral of Mr. Hooper. At the close 
 of the ceremonies Senators will return to tlieir Chamber. 
 
 Mr. SARGENT. When the Senate tof^k its recess yesterday I was 
 discussing the condition of affairs in Arkansas, and showing that an 
 illegal Legislature, illegally supplanting a legal Legislature, and sup- 
 planting it in order to prevent a legal inquiry into the right of the 
 governor of that State to hold his place, hatl called a convention for 
 the purpose of overthrowing the constitution of the State. I say of 
 overthrowing the constitution rather than of amending it, because 
 there was no power in the constitution of the State existing author- 
 izing a new constitution to be made in the manner proposed. The 
 constitution of the State of Arkansas expressly provided the method 
 by which it might be amended, and if there is no security or guaran- 
 tee for organic law in the organic law itself, then we are governed by 
 mere mob power ; then there is no security for the stability of our insti- 
 tutions, and awhim of the populaceorabreathof publicopinion may at 
 any time sweep away the most valuable barriers erected for public 
 safety. Article 13 of the ctmstitution which was supplanted provides 
 that amendments to the constitution shall be proposed by the respec- 
 tive houses of the Legislature and subsequently those amendments 
 submitted to the people, but there is no provision in the constitution for 
 the calling of a constitutional convention for the purpose of an entire 
 change of the instrument. Before that can be constitutionally done, 
 by Jill the precedents which have ever beeii passed upon by courts, 
 the constitution must be amended in this manner to confer this power 
 upon the Legislature and upon such constitutional convention. The 
 question is by no means new. It has been passed upon directly by 
 many courts where the question has been raised. The supreme court 
 of Illinois in the case of Field V8. The People, 2 Scammon, 79, passed 
 upon a kindred question. I will refer only to the syllabus of the case, 
 because I find on reference to the opinion that it is a fair rendering of 
 the judgment of the court in the matter, and they exhaustively con- 
 sidered the subject. They say : 
 
 It is a general rule, th.at when a constitution gives a general power or enjoins a 
 dnty, it also gives, by implication, every particular ])Ower necessary for the exer- 
 cise of the one or the perfonnance of the other. But this rule is modilied by this 
 very rule, that where the means for the exercise of a granted power are also given, 
 no other or different means or powers can be implied either on account of con- 
 venience or of being more etfectual. 
 
 The constitutiou of Arkansas provided means by which it might 
 be amended, and it was unconstitutional, a violation of the organic 
 law, to take any other or different means upon any pretense that it 
 would be more convenient or more etfectual. The supreme court of 
 
49 
 
 Delawaiv, in 4 Harrington, advert to the question of the right of 
 the peoph? by a constitutional convention thus irregularly called to 
 change the constitution of a State. In Delaware formerly there was 
 no such power of amendment of the State constitution, and the conrt 
 uses an apt illustration, familiar to them, in their reasoning in this 
 case. In this case of Kice vs. Foster, 4 Harrington, 488, the supreme 
 court say : 
 
 The legislative, executive, and judicial powers compose the sovereign power of 
 a State. The people of the State of Delaware have vested the legislative ])ower in 
 a General Assembly, consisting of a senate .and house of representatives ; the 
 supremo executive i)owers of tlio State in a governor; and the judicial power in 
 the several courts mentioned in the sixth article. The sovereign power, therefore, 
 of this State resides with the 'egislative, executive, and judicial departments. 
 Having thus transferred the sovereign jiower, the people cannot resume or exercise 
 any portion of it. To do so would be an infraction of the constitution and a disso- 
 lution of tlie government. Nor can they interfere with the exercise of any part of 
 the sovereign power except by petition, remonsti-ance, or address. They have the 
 power to change or alter the constitution ; but this can be done onl^' in the mode 
 prescribed by the instrument itself. 
 
 The Senator from Ohio, [Mr. Thukman,] when the President's 
 message came in objecting to these illegal proceedings by which the 
 government of Arkansas was subverted, was astounded by such 
 declaration on the part of the President ; and yet by the authorities, 
 well considered, of various States of the Union where this question 
 has been determined, it has been unifonnly held that this would be 
 an illegal subversion of the constitution of a State. I ask what is 
 astounding in the President of the United States calling attention to 
 this fact and asking that Congress take measures to remedy the mis- 
 chief f 
 
 The supreme court of Delaware say : 
 
 The attempt to do so in any other mode is revolutionarv. And although the peo- 
 ple have the power, in conformity with its provisions, 'to alter tlie constitution, 
 under no circumstances can they, so long as the Constitution of the United States 
 remains the paramount law of ithe land, establish a dnnoeracy, or any other than 
 a republican form of government. It is equally clear tliat neither legislative, ex- 
 ecutive, nor judicial departments separately, nor all combined, can devolve on the 
 people the exercise of any part of the sovereign power with which caili is invested. 
 The assumption of a power to do so would be usurpation. The (Upaitnu'ut arro- 
 gating it would elevate itself above the constitution ; overturn the foundation on 
 which its own authority rests ; demolish the whole frame and texture of our repub- 
 lican form of government, and prostrate everything to the worst species of tyranny 
 and despotism, the ever-varying will of an irresponsible multitude. The powers 
 of government are trusts of the highest importance, on the faithful and proper ex- 
 ercise of which depend the welfare and happiness of society. These trusts must 
 be exercised in strict confonnity with the spirit and intention of the constitution 
 by those with whom they aie deposited. 
 
 Mr. BAYAED. As the Senator has referred to the decisions of thp 
 courts of my State, with which I am entirely familiar, I would beg 
 leave to say to him that the members of the court that made the de- 
 cision he has just cited held their offices under a constitution which 
 was adopted in tlirect derogation of the requirements of the constitu- 
 tion that preceded it. The constitution of 1792 provided that certain 
 articles should never be changed, and when the constitution of 1829 
 under which the court that gave this decision was appointed was 
 adopted, it was in violation of the terms of the constitution that had 
 preceded it. The case which he has cited has nothing to do with the 
 question he is now discussing. It was a question there of the power 
 of the Legislature to delegate their power to the people, so that they 
 should give a law vitality by popular vote and let it depend on the 
 popular vote for its force as a law. The court decided that that 
 could not be. There was no question before them in the case of Rice 
 
 4 s 
 
50 
 
 rs. Foster as to the power of the State to change its coiistitutiou in a 
 mode not iioiuted out by the coustitutiou itself, and it was not before 
 them, not considered, not decided. AVhat has been read was an obiier 
 dictuM in the very strongest sense of tlie term, bnt the court that 
 nttered it hekl their places ^luder a constitution that had been 
 adopted in violation of the provisions of the preceding constitution. 
 
 Mr. SARGENT. I do not desire to discuss the good or bad faith of 
 the courts of Delaware ; I do not wish to say whether by this de- 
 cision they passed condemnation upon themselves or not ; but I do 
 say that they most distinctly lay down in aid of the main proposition 
 in the case that there is no power to amend a constitution except 
 through the method which the constitution itself points out. I know 
 that there is another method not recognized by courts, that there is 
 what may be called violent revolution and there is peaceful revolu- 
 tion. But I am talking about law, not revolutions, which are outside 
 of and subversive of law. These were jieaceful revolutions in the 
 case of New York and Illinois, where, the constitution being changed 
 otherwise than as provided by the instrument, the question was never 
 raised in the courts or brought to the attention of Congress. There 
 Avas general acquiescence and satisfaction of the people in the re- 
 sults ; and such cases are merely instances, they are not precedents 
 showing what the law is. 
 
 The supreme court of Massachusetts, on a question submitted by 
 the house of representatives of that State, also sustained strongly the 
 principle of the reasoning of this siipreme court of Delaware. The 
 questions submitted iu that case were, whether the Legislature could 
 submit to the people the proposition whether there should be a State 
 convention for the reformation of the constitution, when there was 
 no provision in the existing constitution authorizing such a body. 
 And the supreme court of Massachusetts, advising, says in 6 Cashing, 
 .575: 
 
 Under and pmsuant to the existing constitution, there is no authority given by 
 any reasonable consti-uction or necessary- implication by which any specific and 
 partieuhir amendment or ameudmeut,s iif the coiistitutiou can be made in any other 
 luannir tliun that prescribediu the ninth iu tule of tlic aiiicudments adopted in 1820. 
 Considering tliat previous to 1820 no modt^ was jaovided by the constitution for its 
 own aiiK iidniiiit, that no other power tor tliat purpose than in the mode alluded to 
 is anywliirc given in the constitution by implication or otherwise, and that the 
 mode tlicrtby jirovided appears manifestly to have been carefully considered, and 
 the power of altering the constitution thereby conferred to have been cautiously 
 restrained and guarded, we think a strong implication arises against the existence 
 of any other power, under the constitution, for the same purposes. 
 
 I think that this is the current of decisions all the way tln-ough, and 
 in no case can you find that a court stultified itself by saying that that 
 is law which is in violation of law ; that that is constitutional which 
 is subversive of the constitution. The only thing that can be insisted 
 on is that a constitution shall stand where there is a peaceable revo- 
 lution in which the people acquiesce, the question not being raised; 
 but such assumption fails where a forcible revolution like that which 
 occurred in Arkansas happens, and the protests of the iieople bring it 
 to the attention of Congress. 
 
 Mr. BAYARD. May I ask the Senator whether his position is that 
 if a State coustitutiou shall forbid the alteration of certain of its 
 articles in any mode whatever, they are not to be changed at .any 
 time by any action of the people ? 
 
 Mr. SARGENT. That would be anti-republican and might justify a 
 ])eacof)il revolution if the people should be satisfied so to change 
 their organic law. Or it might justify a forcible revolution if the 
 oppression was great. But iu either case it would be the will of the 
 
51 
 
 people. But the -will of the people was overawed in the case of Ar- 
 kausas, as all the facts show, ami there were no o])pressive provisious 
 iu the coiistitntion of that State. 
 
 Mr. BAYARD. The Senator thinks that an immutable condition in 
 a constitution would be anti-republican ? 
 
 Mr. SARGENT. I believe that the old constitution in Rhode 
 Island discussed iu Luther vs. Borden, with its disfranchising, un- 
 changeable clauses, was anti-republican. I think an immutable con- 
 stitution is anti-republican, because their institutions should not be 
 beyond the legitimate control of the people. I have no question about 
 that ; but that was not the constitution of the State of Arkansas. 
 In that constitution there was a specific and plain method by which 
 the constitution could be amended, and am^ile means aftbrded to the 
 people, and means which a few years before they had exercised to 
 amend the instrument. 
 
 Mr. BAYARD. The Senator thinks an immutable provision iu a 
 State constitution is anti-republican. Does he consider that the 
 United States, under its guarantee to each State of a republican form 
 of government, may interfere at any time to change that constitution 
 in those features ? 
 
 Mr. SARGENT. The Senator might ask a great many questions. 
 I am not here to discuss abstract propositions. When that proposi- 
 tion comes before the Senate I will discuss it. The Constitution of 
 the United States simply guarantees a republican form of govern- 
 ment, and if there is a republican form of government established by 
 the people, established honestly and fairly, expressing the will of the 
 people, it is within the guarantee of the Constitution. But the Sen- 
 ator will observe he is diverting me from the case of Arkansas whose 
 every step was gained by force and aided by fraud. For instance, 
 the very Legislature which passed through iu one day the bill for 
 the calling of a constitutional convention was surrounded by Bax- 
 ter's troops, and no member of the Legislature or other jicrson was 
 allowed to pass through the lines without a regular pass from Bax- 
 ter, and consequently there was no quorum i>resent, for that and for 
 other reasons, on account of the disturbed condition of affairs there. 
 He gave passes to men who had been elected by an illegal election, 
 Avhere the people could not be registered, where the registry law 
 itself had been tampered with; and this illegal body gave the first 
 foundation for this whole proceeding. Do you call that acting on 
 the will of the people ? Is that the manner in wliich a republican 
 form of government can be established or amended ? To assert it is 
 simply to assert an absurdity. The authorities are ample upon the 
 question of the absence of right to alter a constitution without ref- 
 erence to a fair discretion of the people in accordance with the terms 
 of the instrument Avhich gives the power to amend. For instance, 
 in 35 Pennsylvania Reports, 265, The Commonwealth ex rel. Baxter, 
 the court say : 
 
 It is a natural principle of liumanity tliat tlie will of a m.in is regulated by liis 
 habits, and tliatof a people by their settled customs and institutions; and without 
 this neither can liave any -character by which their actions can be judged. Law 
 means the settled customs anil institutions of a people, and if these do not exist 
 there is no law, and courts, if there be any, must be mere arbitrary powers. Law 
 will hare lost one of its essential elements whtm the mere will of the people shall 
 prevail over the settled principles of tlieir social life. Even a people, therefore, 
 must conform to their own institutions if they are to liave any government. 
 
 Here was an existing constitution of the State of Arkansas which 
 had been in operation for years, which provided adequate means and 
 a mode for its amendment, and as the supreme court of Pennsylvania 
 
52 
 
 says, if the people of Arkansas have any security for hxvr it must he 
 iu accordance with Law aud the constitution should have heeu fol- 
 lowed in order that the suhsequeut convention which asserahled could 
 be legal, or that any amendment of the constitution conld be recog- 
 nized by the United States or the people of that State as the consti- 
 tution of the State. 
 
 But more than this, the constitution of the State provided that the 
 ballot should be secret. The object of the secrecy of the ballot, es- 
 pecially in communities like this, or in .any community, is obvious 
 enough. It is that a man may not be deterred by intimidation or by 
 social iufluence from casting his vote as he pleases, and this right 
 was secured by the constitution of the State of Arkansas, which has 
 been overthrown. By an ordinance of the new constitutional con- 
 A'eution, providing the method by which this constitution should be 
 submitted to the people, it was declared in section 14 — 
 
 That the names of the electors shall he ninnbered, ami the correspondiug mim- 
 hers shall he placed upon the ballots by the judges when deposited. 
 
 Thus creating a system of espionage over the voters of the State ; 
 thus giving the strong and influential classes, the property classes, 
 the control of the poor classes, with ample means to know how they 
 voted, to execute vengeance upon them if they did not vote as they 
 desired. They struck down the secrecy of the ballot, aud in defiance 
 of the constitution itself. 
 
 I will not cite authorities to the point that an ordinance accom- 
 panying a new constitution cannot have the force of law to repeal 
 provisions of the old constitution before it is replaced by the new. 
 To insist upon that, I say, would be to insist upon an obvious legal 
 absurdity — that a constitutional convention meeting to propose a 
 new constitution can by an ordinance set aside the provisions of the 
 old constitution before that constitution is replaced by the new or 
 adopted by the people ; aud yet that is just the thing they did here 
 in Arkansas and in the most vital point, by striking down the purity 
 of the ballot-box by destroying its secrecy. In 13 New York Eeports, 
 page 27, in the case of the People vs. Pease, there is a discussion of 
 the question as to the right of a citizen to the secret ballot under a 
 law merely providing for the secrecy of the ballot, aud the judge 
 says: 
 
 I have already alluded to the iiolioy of the law providinji for a secret ballot. The 
 right to vote ill tliis luamnr has usually beencoiisiderid an inip(irt:uit aud valuable 
 safeguard of the iiidciKiidciKc of the humble citizen against the iutluence which 
 wealth and station iiiiglit l>e sujiposed to exercise. Tliis object would be accom- 
 plished but very imperfectly, if the privacy supposed to be secured was limited to 
 the moment of depositing the ballot. The spirit of the system requires that the 
 elector should be secured then, and at all times tliereafter, against reproach or 
 animadversion or any otiicr i)i ijudici' on account of having votc<l a<(ording to his 
 own unbiased judgment ; and that security is made to consist iu shutting up within 
 the privacy of his own mind all knowledge of the manner in which he has bestowed 
 his suffrage. 
 
 That was the intention of the constitution of Arkansas, that the 
 voter should be allowed thus to lock up iu his own mind the knowl- 
 edge of the maniver in which he cast his vote ; but all this Avas 
 stricken down by the illegal proceedings which I have mentioned. 
 This subject was' discussed in IW Black, Indiana Reports, 9U-96, and 
 the pertinency of the decision is so great, and it illustrates so fully 
 the illegality of these Ai'kansas proceedings, as well as the wrongs 
 that the actors inflicted on the voters of that State, that I take time 
 to read the facts stated in the opinion, as well as the conclusions of 
 the able judge who made it : 
 
 The complaint alleges in substance that on the 11th day of October, 1870, at 
 
53 
 
 general rlortioii liilil pursnaiit to law for the election of divers officers, the dc^fend- 
 aut was the dulv aiiipointed iiiH])ector of elections for a legal precinct of Fairfield 
 Township, in TlpiHiaiiDi.' County, known as precinct Xo. 2, and ofliciated as such ; 
 that on said day the plaintiff was a resident of said township and a duly q\ialifietl 
 voter, &c. ; that he gave his ballot, which was in all respects a legal liallot, to said 
 defendant as such inspector, and demanded that it sliould bo put into the ballot-box 
 without any distinguishing mark or number beinor placed upon it ; but that defend- 
 ant, as such'inspector, against the protest of plaintitr, unlawfully numbered the same, 
 &c., whereby plaintiff became damaged in his constitutional xirivileges and fran- 
 chises, &c. 
 
 The defendant has demurred to the complaint for want of sufHcient facts to con- 
 stitute a caiise of action against him. The question raised by this demurrer in- 
 volves the constitutionality of section 2 of an act of the Legislature approved May 
 13, 1869, which section reads in these words, namely : 
 
 "It shall be the duty of the inspector of any election held in this State, on receiv- 
 ing the ballot of any voter, to liave the same numbered with figures on the outside 
 or back thereof to correspond with the number placed opposite the name of such 
 voter on the poll-lists kept by the clerks of said election." 
 
 It will be seen that the acts of the defendant of which plaintiff complains are not 
 only authorized, but enjoined, by the section quoted, and if the same is valid there 
 is an end of plaintiff's case. It is claimed, however, that this law is void because 
 in conflict with section 13 of article 2 of the constitution of Indiana. Section 13 reads 
 thus : 
 
 " All elections by the people shall be by ballot, and all elections by the General 
 Assembly, or either branch thereof, shall be viva voce." 
 
 I am not unmindful of the rule that all doubts are to be solved in favor of the 
 constitutionality of legislative enactments. This rule is well established and 
 is founded in the highest wisdom. But my convictions are clear that our constitu- 
 tion was intended to, and does, seciu'e the absolute secrecy of a ballot, and that 
 the act in question, which directs the numbering of tickets' to correspond with the 
 numbers opposite the names of the electors on the poll-lists, is in palpable conflict 
 not only witli the spirit but with the substance of the constitutional provision. 
 
 This act was intended to and does clearly identify every man's ticket, and ren- 
 ders it easy to ascertain exactly how any particular person voted. That secrecy 
 which is esteemed by all authority to be essential to the free exercise of suffrage 
 is as much violated by this law a.s if it had declared that the election should be 
 viva voce. 
 
 I miglit p,o on from point to point, showing otliev monstrous ille- 
 galities. These conspirators stopped at no f rand or oppression. They 
 subverted all the institutions of the State, made popular government 
 a farce, corrupted the elections by illegally selected tools to do their 
 will, and drove half the people of the State in despair from the polls. 
 
 The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Thurman] is astounded that the 
 President should call attention to these things. How enormous it is 
 that he should he forever, and that republicans should be forever, 
 complaining of things at the South ! Why not let the old confede- 
 rates trample down the rights of the people of tlie State, trample 
 down their organic law, substitute for it another instrument without 
 observing any of the forms that the constitution required, surround 
 the Legislature or a mock Legislature with force, keep real legislators 
 out, and then pass through under such forms a bill for a constitu- 
 tional convention ! Why should the President interfere in things of 
 this kind? Why should he call the attention of Congress to them? 
 We are astounded, say democratic Senators, at the presumption which 
 can do it. 
 
 The republican party in Arkansas met in convention while these 
 things were in progress before the vote came upon the new coustitti- 
 tion and resolved, and publislied their address wherein they said all 
 these things are illegal, these thijigs are the fruit of force and fraud ; 
 we will not recognize these things as legal by our votes or our pres- 
 ence at the polls ; and they staid away from the polls and thei'eby 
 lirotested in the strongest manner. They are certainly nearly one- 
 half of the people of the State, unquestionably a majority of the peo- 
 ple of the State, judging by former elections. Thereby this great 
 
5i 
 
 body of the people of the State jirotcstecl in the strongest manner 
 against the adoption of this constitution. It is claimed that it was 
 adoiited by a majority of the voters, notwithstanding nearly one- 
 half of the voters of the State staid away from the election ; while 
 by the peculiar manipulations which the officers of the election who 
 were creatures of Governor Baxter were able to cany on the vote of 
 the State apparently was larger than at any former election or any 
 subsequent election in that State, in itself evidence of the grossest 
 frauds which were resorted to in order to give a color to these -pvo- 
 ceedings. 
 
 In the case which I cited before of the Commonwealth vs. Baxter, 
 the supreme court of Pennsylvania, on page 264 of the thirty-fifth 
 volimae Pennsylvania Keports, say : 
 
 Majorities go for nothing at an irregular election ; we cannot regard them even 
 as mjy orities, for it is the right of orderly citizens to stay away from such elections. 
 
 They cannot be regarded as majorities; and instead of piling up 
 105,000 votes, by the thousands more than ever were before or since 
 cast in that State, in order to make the color of a majority, if they 
 had piled up a million votes in the State it would not have been a 
 majority, no rdatter what vote might have been cast. Such majori- 
 ties go for nothing, because the election was illegal and irregular ; 
 because it was not held by the officers who were appointed by 
 law ; because the registry laws of the State were rejjealed ; because 
 the method of casting the ballots was tampered with in violation of 
 the constitution, by which private marks Avere put upon them to be 
 recognized thereafter, and voters questioned as to the method of 
 theii' voting ; because the object of the election was illegal, there 
 being no power in the convention that assembled to prescribe that 
 object — that is to say, the adoption or ratification of this pretended 
 constitution — and the republicans were perfectly right in staying 
 away. 
 
 I know and have admitted that in some cases in the States a 
 change of the constitution brought about through the means of a 
 constitutional convention not contemplated by their existing consti- 
 tution has been assented to by the people, and they have been treated 
 as peaceable revolutions. No question with regard to them has been 
 raised in the courts; the courts themselves have been organized 
 under the new constitutions ; and Legislatures have met, and the 
 people have been satisfied, and all has passed on quietly. There has 
 never before been any instance, however, where one-half or more of 
 the people of a State were complaining of the frauds and violences 
 by which these things were brought about. In this very case in 
 AjL'kansas, as part of the nefarious means which they Tised to stifle 
 the voice of the people and prevent their asserting their rights, the 
 conspirators abolished some of the courts, forbid others to take cog- 
 nizance of questions arising out of the action of the convention, 
 and enacted that no session of the supremo court should be held 
 until after the election upon the constitution — until the whole thing- 
 had been put in motion and the time was passed when the people 
 could have any legal assistance in arresting the desi^otic measures 
 to which they were to be subjected. This suspension of the courts 
 is in itself a badge of fraud. Why susi)end the courts ? Why take 
 such action that the people cannot appear before the lawful tribunals 
 and have the question tested ? O, yes, Senators are astounded that 
 the President of the United States calls attention to these enormi- 
 ties! Why, I ask again, should he not? He would bo derelict to 
 plain dut}' did he not. This was a revolution wrought in blood, amid 
 
tumult, amid armed forces surrounding the Legislature, dominating 
 tlie wills of the people there. In the report which was made by Mr. 
 Ward, and his report is well sustained by the testimony in the case, 
 it is well substantiated by this volume of papers which I hold in my 
 hand. [Exhibiting a package.] Here is a statement of murders by 
 the hundred in ditfereut counties in the State of Arkansas, showing 
 in detail the murders and murderous assaults that have occurred 
 there for political purposes, of republicans, white and black, northern 
 bom and soiithern. The showing is terrible. Arkansas has a popu- 
 lation of 122,160 blacks and 316,152 whites. The abstract of these 
 papers shows that from the time of the reconstructed State govern- 
 ment until the Garland usurpation was accomplished there were 789 
 murders and 380 assaults with intent to kill ; 1,052 were committed 
 by democrats and 117 by republicans; those who committed the 
 murders were 1,078 white and only 82 black; the victims were 865 
 republicans and 304 democrats, nearly three to one, and many of the 
 latter were killed in reiielling their assaults. I will let the table be 
 incorporated in my remarks. 
 
56 
 
 [The following is the table referred to by Mr. 
 
 Sakgext: 1 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 — .s 
 
 3 
 
 X 
 
 < 
 
 By whom committed. 
 
 On whom com- 
 mitted. 
 
 .s 
 
 g 
 
 o 
 H 
 
 Counties. 
 
 "a 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 -2 
 
 
 p 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 C5 
 
 i-t 
 o 
 o 
 
 s 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 10 
 
 8 
 
 17 
 
 12 
 
 7 
 
 3 
 
 9 
 
 10 
 
 18 
 
 14 
 
 29 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 21 
 
 13 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 8 
 
 23 
 
 20 
 
 14 
 
 68 
 
 18 
 
 3 
 
 32 
 
 10 
 
 4 
 
 23 
 
 5 
 
 17 
 
 6 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 
 o 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 11 
 
 3 
 
 44 
 
 9 
 
 30 
 
 45 
 
 3 
 
 6 
 
 5 
 
 4 
 
 8 
 
 37 
 
 34 
 
 16 
 
 8 
 
 17 
 
 16 
 
 30 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 4 
 3 
 3 
 2 
 3 
 1 
 6 
 4 
 
 10 
 3 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 1 
 2 
 3 
 4 
 2 
 8 
 
 11 
 9 
 1 
 8 
 7 
 1 
 
 13 
 2 
 7 
 2 
 2 
 4 
 1 
 2 
 4 
 
 18 
 6 
 3 
 4 
 
 13 
 
 15 
 2 
 8 
 1 
 2 
 
 63 
 
 20 
 
 11 
 
 4 
 
 8 
 
 3 
 
 43 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 4 
 3 
 6 
 
 12 
 1 
 
 5 
 1 
 
 1 
 3 
 1 
 1 
 
 2 
 6 
 
 7 
 2 
 
 7 
 2 
 2 
 
 1 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 1 
 8 
 2 
 3 
 4 
 
 2 
 4 
 
 
 7 
 
 1 
 2 
 2 
 
 
 1 
 3 
 
 16 
 12 
 19 
 13 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 12 
 
 17 
 
 18 
 
 20 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 18 
 
 18 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 8 
 
 26 
 
 21 
 
 22 
 
 77 
 
 21 
 
 4 
 
 33 
 
 15 
 
 5 
 
 29 
 
 5 
 
 22 
 
 8 
 
 5 
 
 8 
 
 3 
 
 7 
 
 10 
 
 26 
 
 8 
 
 39 
 
 11 
 
 40 
 
 57 
 
 5 
 
 12 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 10 
 
 93 
 
 54 
 
 26 
 
 10 
 
 23 
 
 19 
 
 72 
 
 6 
 
 16 
 
 12 
 
 20 
 
 8 
 
 9 
 
 6 
 
 7 
 
 13 
 
 18 
 
 19 
 
 25 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 23 
 
 18 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 8 
 
 26 
 
 21 
 
 22 
 
 77 
 
 22 
 
 4 
 
 36 
 
 16 
 
 5 
 
 29 
 
 5 
 
 23 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 9 
 
 3 
 
 7 
 
 10 
 
 26 
 
 8 
 
 39 
 
 11 
 
 41 
 
 60 
 
 5 
 
 14 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 10 
 
 97 
 
 49 
 
 26 
 
 12 
 
 24 
 
 19 
 
 72 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 3 
 3 
 2 
 5 
 7 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 
 5 
 
 4 
 1 
 
 7 
 2 
 1 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 8 
 2 
 2 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 5 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 14 
 11 
 17 
 13 
 
 8 
 3 
 8 
 14 
 18 
 20 
 25 
 3 
 1 
 
 16 
 
 18 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 11 
 
 25 
 
 14 
 
 16 
 
 60 
 
 17 
 
 4 
 
 35 
 
 11 
 
 4 
 
 25 
 
 4 
 
 20 
 
 6 
 
 3 
 
 7 
 
 2 
 
 7 
 
 6 
 
 18 
 
 4 
 
 28 
 
 10 
 
 30 
 
 53 
 
 5 
 
 8 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 84 
 
 35 
 
 24 
 
 10 
 
 22 
 
 6 
 
 53 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 1 
 3 
 2 
 1 
 3 
 2 
 2 
 2 
 4 
 7 
 1 
 3 
 7 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 8 
 6 
 19 
 10 
 
 5 
 6 
 1 
 11 
 3 
 4 
 2 
 3 
 3 
 1 
 
 4 
 11 
 5 
 19 
 3 
 13 
 8 
 
 6 
 4 
 4 
 9 
 16 
 19 
 3 
 2 
 3 
 13 
 20 
 6 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 6 
 6 
 9 
 4 
 9 
 
 12 
 
 18 
 
 20 
 
 25 
 
 1 
 
 4 
 
 14 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 9 
 
 20 
 
 13 
 
 13 
 
 21 
 
 20 
 
 4 
 
 35 
 
 13 
 
 5 
 
 12 
 3 
 5 
 2 
 
 6 
 4 
 3 
 1 
 4 
 11 
 9 
 21 
 7 
 
 18 
 
 33 
 
 5 
 
 7 
 
 6 
 
 5 
 
 9 
 
 29 
 
 19 
 
 4 
 
 2 
 
 9 
 
 10 
 
 35 
 
 3 
 
 12 
 
 8 
 
 14 
 9 
 
 2 
 1 
 4 
 2 
 4 
 7 
 3 
 
 9 
 
 17 
 4 
 1 
 2 
 
 7 
 
 9 
 
 9 
 
 58 
 
 7 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 24 
 
 4 
 
 19 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 18 
 
 
 
 26 
 
 6 
 
 25 
 
 28 
 
 
 
 7 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 71 
 
 35 
 
 23 
 
 10 
 
 16 
 
 9 
 
 38 
 
 6 
 
 16 
 
 
 12 
 
 
 20 
 
 
 15 
 
 
 9 
 
 
 6 
 
 
 10 
 
 
 16 
 
 
 20 
 
 
 24 
 
 Clark 
 
 32 
 4 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 2:j 
 
 
 19 
 
 
 4 
 
 Fulton 
 
 6 
 
 
 11 
 
 
 27 
 
 
 22 
 
 
 22 
 
 
 79 
 
 
 27 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 40 
 
 Jefferson 
 
 17 
 5 
 
 
 36 
 
 
 7 
 
 
 24 
 
 
 S 
 
 
 6 
 
 
 10 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 7 
 
 
 10 
 
 
 2!l 
 
 Polk 
 
 9 
 
 Phillips 
 
 47 
 
 
 13 
 
 
 43 
 
 
 61 
 
 Pike 
 
 5 
 
 
 14 
 
 
 6 
 
 
 6 
 
 
 10 
 
 
 100 
 
 
 54 
 
 
 27 
 
 
 12 
 
 
 25 
 
 
 19 
 
 White 
 
 73 
 
 Yell 
 
 9 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 789 
 
 380 
 
 117 
 
 1, 052 
 
 1,078 
 
 82 
 
 873 
 
 294 
 
 578 
 
 589 
 
 1,167 
 
 
 
57 
 
 The report of Mr. Wakd sustains these documents and is sustained 
 hy them and by all the testimony taken by his committee ; and he 
 sums it up in strong and nervous language : 
 
 I think it sulticii'iitly api>r;u's lliat, ilowii to the chiso of the convent ion, thewliolo 
 proci'filiniis weiv void, lieeause (if tlie violations of all law: the frauds, violence, 
 anil intimidations jiractieed by Uaxier and his coconspivators, and tlial tlio election 
 to revise the constitution was held in vitdation of tlie exist irii; constitution; that 
 the convention, if properly called, exceeded its powirs. and the election to ratify 
 its work was void ; and it cannot be successfnlly contended that the people of 
 Arkansas have in any h'j;al way under any forms of law ex]iressed their wisli to 
 overtlu-ow the constitiition of is'ds, or to set up the present usui'ijalion. 
 
 If banditti, or a niol) of armed men. may take possession of a Stati", dejjose its 
 officers, arrest its judiics, close its courts, intimidate its ]MM)|de tlu-ouu'h violence 
 and murder, provide its own way of holdiui; and its own oliic'crs to ludd elections, 
 and its own officers to d<-ehire tlie result, and the fruits of such defiance of all law 
 are binding ui)ou the people of such State and upon Congress, then the jjresent pre- 
 tended government of Arkansas is legitimate, and must lie recognized as such, but 
 not otherwise. 
 
 And I have not stated it too strong, for those who wiU read the extracts I 
 have given from the mass of evidence" taken by the committee must be satisfied 
 there was a reign of terror throughout Arkansas during the i>eriod in which the 
 so-called Garland government was l)cing formed and set in motion, entirely incon- 
 sistent with a fuirand fair expression of the will of the people on that suliject. 
 
 The capital city was overrun witli the drunken and lawless (governor's Guard, 
 which assaulted virivate citizens, abused and beat negroes, searched and rummaged 
 private houses and jirivate offices, and threatened everybody who opposed Baxter 
 with arrest, imprisonment, or exih; from the State. 
 
 At and about Pure Bin It, King AVhite, a drunken, reckless man, jiroclaimed mar- 
 tial law, and arrested and iminisoned the leading men without shadow of cause; 
 and then they were oti'eied freedom on condition that they would support the 
 movement for a new constitution. 
 
 North of the capital, in Conway and Faulkner Counties, Jeff K. Jones, upon 
 whose head Baxter himself had set a price as upon an outlaw for the murders he 
 had committed, had a gang of desperate men committing murder, arson, and violent 
 acts of all kinds upon Union and Brooks men ; and Baxter knew of these things, 
 and made no attempt to restrain them or to arrest the murderer, Jones. 
 
 In Hot Springs and Perry Counties like unlawful violent acts occurred. Men in 
 office were impeached without cause or notice and ejected by military power; 
 property of private citizens was taken illegally and without comj.)ensation to the 
 owners. 
 
 The judo;es of the supreme court were arrested by armed force, subjected to 
 insults and a"buse, concealed, and linally spirited away to be assassinated if an 
 attempt .should be made for their rescue or they attempt to escape. 
 
 False charges were made against olmoxiims men, and the arrests made thereon 
 were intended for and used to cover cold-blooded and cruel murder, as in the case 
 of the colored man Ned Abes. 
 
 Mounted bands of desperate men roamed the conntry to awe and intimidate the 
 colored people, even at their barbecues and jubilations. 
 
 Men high in command of the so-called militia and at the head and in presence of 
 a strong force of their own men threatened (piietand peaceable citizens with death 
 by hanging, as in the case of General Chuichill at the barbecue on the 3d of July 
 last. 
 
 Baxter himself was daily muttering his curses, and, surrounded by his troops, 
 selected because they were desperate and would fire on the supreme court con- 
 stantly, uttered his profane threats to arrest and hang or drive fi-om the State the 
 last Brooks man. 
 
 And this was the quiet which gave a " fair election ; " this the condition of the 
 people when their government was overthrown and a new one set up. 
 
 There is little to be added to such a showing as this. Under these 
 circumstances, with conftision, intimidation, illegality, fraud, the 
 State government of Arkansas was subverted, and in the direction 
 which I mentioned yesterday. It was seized as part of a general 
 plan to seize every one of the reconstructed States, in order to bring 
 back a system of 'peonage there. 
 
 The same is true of Alabama, except that it has not yet proceeded 
 to its full restxlt. I have here a letter of a correspondent of the New 
 York Times, a paper very hard to convince of the true condition of 
 things in the South. The paper sent its own correspondent to Ala- 
 bama to make a report that it could trust. That correspondent, 
 writing under date of January 2, says : 
 
 Thousands of men voted the democratic ticket against their conviction from 
 
 5s 
 
58 
 
 fear of violeuce or loss of employmeut, and many tliousauds more failed to vote at 
 all fiom the same cause. The northern peojile can have no conception of the state 
 of society here, and the testimony taken before the committee cannot but malie a 
 deep impression. The evidence fully shows that a republican form of government 
 cannot be maintained in the State of Alabama without the aid of the Uiiited States 
 troops. 
 
 The evidence shows that the churches and school-houses of the colored people 
 were burned and tlestroyed by white democrats only because the colored people 
 who worshiped and sent their children to school therein were republicans ; that 
 armed white democrats, in companies of hundreds, visited some of the more intel- 
 ligent of these colored people, beat them, and drove them from their homes. 
 
 On the Georgia border white democrats came to this State and voted not only 
 once, but in some instances three times, and led negroes to the polls and made 
 them vote the democratic ticket. At Grirard, in Russell County, the police from 
 Cohuubus, Georgia, surrounded the polls and kept possession of them all day. It 
 has also been found that the polls at Spring Hill, Barbour County, were destroyed 
 by democrats and about six liuudrcd votes lost to the republicans, and the son of 
 Judge Kiels, who was the Unitrd States supervisor, was killed ; also one hundred 
 and tifty colored republicans killed and wounded at Eufaula, in the same county, 
 on the day of election, by armed democrats, and upward of five hundred republican 
 voters driven away from the polls. 
 
 Not a particle of evidence has been fiu'nished by the Alabama democrats, or 
 anybody else, that the United States troops in the slightest degree interfered 
 with the election. On the other hand, the subordinate military officers were so 
 bound up by General Order No. 75 that they did not feel authorized to do anything, 
 or extend any help whatever to the election officers, except when called upon to as- 
 sist United States marshals in the execution of wi-its issued by the United States 
 courts. The prosciiption, social ostracism, withdrawal of business, and loss of 
 employment among republicans, on account of politics, amounts to a reign of ter- 
 ror, and thousands of votei's were lost to tlie republican party at the late election 
 from these causes. 
 
 Alabama is iu the same couditioii as some otlier States that have 
 been brought more prominently into pnblic notice. Here it is stated 
 by one who heard the evidence that chnrches and school-honses of 
 colored people are bnrned by white democrats, that colored men 
 are beaten and driven from their homes, and that the northern peo- 
 ple can have no conception of the state of society j»roduced by these 
 frantic efforts to destroy repnblicanism in that State. 
 
 I say to the Senate and I say to the country that we are grappling 
 with a barbarism at the South that will make the negro a savage 
 and the South a desert. The Missoiui Democrat, in a long editorial 
 article recently summing up the condition of aifairs politically' and 
 otherwise iu the South, said: 
 
 Having daily communication with the people of the South, and feeling their 
 spirit in this very State, we tell the people of the North that equality of civil and 
 political rightu and even freedom of labor rvill go by the board, unless some measures 
 are taken to keep up other government than any that southern democrats will 
 maintain. We believe, fiiends of the North, that tliis is the solemn truth, which 
 long before the presidential election will force itself upon your reluctant recogni- 
 tion. Vicksburgh is only tlu' vanguard of an army of riots. 
 
 I believe that it is the duty of the Senate to take warning by these 
 things which are transpiring in the South. The evidence has been 
 accumulating for years ; oiu' tables are piled with it. It comes to us 
 upon every breeze which is wafted from the South. There cau be no 
 reason to doubt that unless this Congress shall take effectual means 
 to check the outrages and wrongs in the South the very forms of re- 
 publican government will be lost and the last rights of the people be 
 trampled under foot ; that one-half of the people of the South will 
 have no political rights whatever, and that the blacks will be again 
 reduced to slavery. For myself I desire most earnestly to assist in 
 legislation that will check these evils and make this cowardly ruffian- 
 ism unsafe; and I am determined, as far as I can, to stand by the 
 helpless and oppressed there, and to sustain the Chief Magistrate of 
 the United States in his efforts to restrain revolutionary disorder and 
 enforce the laws in the South. 
 
 LB S'I2 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 ni I li 1 1 il 
 014 645 140 8