[Thirty-sixth Congress-Second session.]

LOUIS T. WIGFALL,

Senator from Texas from January 4, 1860, till July 11, 1861, when he was expelled.

March 8, 1861, a resolution was submitted that Mr. Wigfall be expelled from the Senate. The preamble stated that he had declared in debate that he was a foreigner; that he owed no allegiance to this Government; but that he belonged to and owed allegiance to another and foreign state and government. March 11, the following resolution was moved as an amendment: "Whereas it is understood that the State of Texas has seceded from the Union, and is no longer one of the United States: Therefore, Resolved, That she is not entitled to be represented in this body." After brief debate the resolution and amendment were referred, March 12, to the Committee on the Judiciary, by whom they were not reported. Extracts from remarks given below will show the facts and arguments presented in support of the two resolutions.

In the next session of Congress, Mr. Wigfall was expelled by resolution of July 11, 1861 (see page 741).

The history of the case here given consists of a transcript of the proceedings of the Senate relating to it from Senate Journal, 2d sess. 36th Cong.; with extracts from remarks of Messrs. Foster and Clingman.

The debate in the case is found on pages 1447-1451 of the Congressional Globe, part 2, 2d sess. 36th Cong.

FRIDAY, March 8, 1861.

Mr. Foster submitted the following resolution for consideration:

"Whereas L. T. Wigfall, now a Senator of the United States from the State of Texas, has declared in debate that he is a foreigner; that he owes no allegiance to this Government, but that he belongs to and owes allegiance to another and foreign state and government: Therefore,

Resolved, That the said L. T. Wigfall be, and he hereby is, expelled from this body."

MONDAY, March 11, 1861.

On motion by Mr. Foster, the Senate proceeded to consider the resolution submitted by him, the 8th instant, to expel the Hon. L. T. Wigfall from the Senate; and,

On motion by Mr. Clingman, to amend the resolution by striking out all after the word "whereas," and in lieu thereof inserting:

"It is understood that the State of Texas has seceded from the Union, and is no longer one of the United States: Therefore

แ

‘Resolved, That she is not entitled to be represented in this body." Pending debate,

On motion by Mr. Clark that the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive business, it was determined in the affirmative-yeas 28, nays 16.

TUESDAY, March 12, 1861. The Senate resumed the consideration of the resolution submitted by Mr. Foster, the 8th instant, to expel the Hon. L. T. Wigfall from the Senate; and,

On motion by Mr. Simmons,

Ordered, That the resolution, with the amendment submitted by Mr. Clingman, be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

[Extract made from remarks made in the Senate, March 11, 1861, by Mr. Foster, of Connecticut, in support of the resolution submitted by him, taken from pages 1447, 1448 of the Congressional Globe referred to in the head-note.]

"I have but very few words to say, Mr. President, either in regard to the resolution or the substitute. I do not propose, at least at present, to enter into any lengthened discussion either of the one or the other; and it is proper, perhaps, that I should state that I have offered the resolution without consultation with my political friends. It is entirely on my own independent responsibility that it is proposed to the body. I have thus offered it without consultation with my political friends; not becauseI do not need, as much as any one, advice and aid from them, nor because I am not, on proper occasions, a party man, but because I was desirous of presenting this question to the Senate altogether unconnected with party interests, and stripped, so far as possible, of all party considerations. I shall not, therefore, call upon any member of the Senate, on one side of the Chamber or the other, to support it; and I ask no member for his support of it; but beg every one to pass upon its naked merits. If it has merits, Senators of course will

vote for it on their own view of those merits. If it has no merits, Ist I should be as far any member of the body from desiring to press it through on ay party or political grounds. The priviliges of a seat in this body are certainly of too high a character to be involved in any matter of party, and I should hope that in the consideration and in the decision of this question we shall rise above all such views, and discuss it and determine it upon far more elevated grounds.

"The Constitution provides for the qualification and the manner of the election of members of this body. It provides, in the third section of the first article, that each State shall be entitled to two Senators; and, in other parts of the instrument, provision is made in respect to the necessary age, to be not less than thirty years; that no person shall be eligible who has not been nine years a citizen of the United States; and, finally, it provides that Senators, like other officers, executive and judicial, of the United States, shall take an oath or affirmation to support the Constitution.

"These are substantially the requirements of the Constitution in regard to members of this body; and I take it it is implied that a Senator of the United States shall owe allegiance to the United States; that this shall be his country; that he shall either be a native-born or a naturalized citizen; and that, if not native-born, he shall have been at least nine years a citizen before he is eligible as a member; clearly manifesting the idea that a man shall become thoroughly American in thought and feeling before holding a seat in this body.

"It is not, however, on any technical grounds, as I suppose, as to citizenship, that the Senator from Texas is obnoxious to objection. I suppose he was a native-born citizen of the United States, and I suppose he was duly elected a member of this body; and I do not suppose that when he spoke of himself as a foreigner he meant that he was born out of the jurisdiction of the country, but that he had another meaning in his mind, which he probably would define more readily and perfectly than I could. Still, Mr. President, it seems to me that this body owes it to itself not to allow members to sit here who avow that they are foreigners, who avow that they owe no allegiance to this Government, who avow that they belong to a foreign government; and if that government happens to be in arms against this Government, attacking its troops, seizing its property, expelling from its territory officers and soldiers of the United States by force, tearing down and trampling in the dust the national flag, treating with scorn and contempt every emblem of our country's authority and power, there may be additional reasons why such avowals and declarations should not be passed idly by. What, beside entire contempt of the body, do such declarations indicate, uttered on the floor of the Senate ?

"I felt it due to myself, as a member of this body, that we should inquire and decide whether it was consistent with our duty as members of the Senate of the United States to allow one so circumstanced, and avowing such feelings and opinions, longer to hold a seat here. I scarcely need say that I have no personal feeling on the subject. I can say with entire truth that so far as my personal relations with the Senator from Texas are concerned they have been entirely kind and friendly. I stated that this was not a party question, so it certainly is not a personal question, and I certainly shall endeavor to prevent its becoming one. If other members of the body think that it is right and proper for a man avowing these opinions to continue to sit here, I shall have done my duty, and shall feel relieved from a responsibility which I felt pressing upon me previously to offering the resolution. I could not, as it seemed to me, discharge my duty without offering it, and presenting the question distinctly to the decision of the Senate.

66

'The Senator from North Carolina has suggested a substitute for the resolution; and the question, I suppose, is first on the substitute. The substitute assumes the right of a State to secede from the Union, and it assumes that the State of Texas has seceded, and therefore, as a logical inference, that she is no longer entitled to representation in this body. I must be so unfortunate, if it be unfortunate, as to differ from the Senator from North Carolina in regard to the whole theory of our Constitution and Government. I do not believe that any State of this Union has any right, any power, under the Constitution, to secede, to take itself out of the Union of these States, which go to make up the United States of America. I differ widely and radically from all who entertain any such view of our Constitution and Government as that, and it appears to me to be a claim altogether monstrous. That this Government is one of power and authority; that no State in this Confederacy has any right, under the Constitution, to go out and cease to be a member of this Federal Union, is a proposition which is to me as clear as anything can be which is not absolutely self-evident. I am not, however, about to enter into an argument on the question. I am persuaded that if I were to endeavor to convince gentlemen who entertain the opposite view, and many do, whose opinions perhaps ought to be more weighty than mine, I should not be able to succeed in convincing them of their We entertain so precisely opposite and antagonistic views of law and Government and our Constitution, that any argument of mine or any reasoning of mine would be wholly lost upon them, as I am free to say theirs would be on me. We might just

error.

as well reason with each other in a foreign language, which the one understood and the other did not, and we should succeed just as well in convincing each other of our error on the one side and of the correctness of the opposite opinion."

[Extract from remarks made in the Senate, March 11, 1861, by Mr. Clingman, of North Carolina. against the adoption of the resolution submitted by Mr. Foster, taken from pages 1448, 1449 of the Congressional Globe referred to in the head-note.]

"Mr. President, I think the Senator from Connecticut has made a very good argument against his own resolution. If his argument be true, I think it is concluoive that his resolution ought not to be adopted; but there is a misunderstanding, perhaps, between us in relation to the facts. If we are to credit the newspapers, the State of Texas has called a convention, and that convention has passed an ordinance of secession, and submitted it to the people, and it has been ratified, it is stated, by a very large vote. That is the opinion entertained by the Senator from Texas, and it is my opinion about the facts, and probably the opinion of most gentlemen here. If that be true, and that be a valid act, and the State of Texas be no longer one of the United States, clearly my resolution is proper enough, and not the resolution of the Senator. When we decide for any cause of law or fact that a person upon this floor, claiming to be a Senator, is not entitled to a seat here, he is never expelled. How was it when, a few years ago, the Senate decided that a Senator from Iowa, who claimed a seat, was not entitled? Did anybody propose to expel him? Repeatedly the Senate and House of Representatives have decided that those who came here and attempted to act as members of the body were not entitled to seats; but nobody ever thought of expelling them on that ground. "I need not, I am sure, dilate on this point of view; for I take it for granted the Senator agrees with me that if the State of Texas has in fact ceased to be one of the United States we should simply say so, and declare that she is not longer entitled to be represented. But the Senator argues that this act is invalid. Take it to be true; suppose Texas has no right, no power, to secede, and in fact has not seceded: then the Senator before me [Mr. Wigfall] is entitled to be here as a member of the body, unless you argue that his erroneous opinion upon that fact disqualifies him. Now, let us look at it for a moment. The Senator from Texas thinks that his State has seceded, and that he is no longer a Senator. That is his opinion as a matter of constitutional law. The Senator from Connecticut, on the other side, says that he is mistaken in that point. Well, sir, was it ever pretended that you would expel a Senator for a mistake upon a legal question? I ask Senators all around, was it ever maintained, that because a Senator differed with a majority upon a constitutional question, however important, that was a reason for expelling him from the body? I do not think so. The Senate may overrule him; they may take such action as to show him that in their judgment he is mistaken, and then he may feel bound to conform to their action, and may do so.

"The Senator from Connecticut says that secession is a monstrous idea. I admit that you might expel a Senator, perhaps, for having some monstrous idea, which showed that he was not capable of acting as one of the body. If, for example, a Senator were to entertain the opinion that the moon was made of green cheese, or some other absurdity, we might come to the conclusion that he had not intellect enough to act upon this floor as a Senator, and that therefore he ought to be driven off it; but will anybody pretend that this opinion of my friend from Texas stands in that category? Have not twenty Senators, perhaps, during the past session, declared on this floor that they entertained that very idea? The whole State of Virginia, I believe, "the mother of States and of statesmen," as she is called, almost without division of opinion, has always maintained that position. Without knowing what either of the Senators from Virginia would say, I take it for granted they both agree with the Senator from Texas.

"If it is an error, therefore, on his part, to believe that a State has a right to secede, and you can expel him for that reason, why not expel the Virginia Senators; why not expel the others who have expressed that opinion; and especially, why not expel those gentlemen who have declared it and gone away? Why is it that their names are called from time to time as Senators in this body? They have avowed the same opinion in quite as strong language as my friend from Texas, and they have acted upon it and gone away, and left us sometimes without a quorum, shown an utter defiance and disregard of the opinions which the Senator from Connecticut avows. Why not extend it to them? "But the Senator alludes to the fact that the State of Texas has taken possession of some of the public property, and perhaps expelled the armies of the United States. Is that a sufficient reason for expelling her representatives here? If that be a good reason, it applies with more force to the other States. I ask that Senator how it is that he allows the name of Jefferson Davis to be called here, and makes no motion to expel him? He claims to be the head of a foreign government. Not only has his State seceded; not only has he advised taking possession of the forts; but he is the commander-in-chief of the army and the president of another republic, and yet he is a "marvelously proper" Senator; there is no motion made to expel him. I should like to know upon what principle

it is."

[Thirty-seventh Congress-First session.]

JAMES M. MASON AND ROBERT M. T. HUNTER,
of Virginia.

THOMAS L. CLINGMAN AND THOMAS BRAGG,

of North Carolina.

JAMES CHESTNUT, JR.,

of South Carolina.

A. O. P. NICHOLSON,

of Tennessee.

WILLIAM K. SEBASTIAN AND CHARLES B. MITCHEL,

of Arkansas.

JOHN HEMPHILL AND LOUIS T. WIGFALL,

of Texas.

July 10, 1861, a resolution was submitted that Messrs. Mason, Hunter, Clingman, Bragg, Chestnut, Nicholson, Sebastian, Mitchel, Hemphill, and Wigfall be "expelled from the Senate.) The pream. ble stated that it was "apparent that these Senators were engaged in the conspiracy for the destruction of the Union, or, with full knowledge of the conspiracy, had failed to advise the Government of its progress, or aid in its suppression.' The following day the resolution was agreed to.

WEDNESDAY, July 10, 1861.

Mr. Clark submitted the following resolution for consideration: "Whereas a conspiracy has been formed against the peace, union, and liberties of the people and Government of the United States, and in furtherance of such conspiracy a portion of the people of the States of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Texas have attempted to withdraw those States from the Union, and are now in arms against the Government; and

"Whereas James M. Mason and Robert M. T. Hunter, Senators from Virginia; Thomas L. Clingman and Thomas Bragg, Senators from North Carolina; James Chestnut, jr., a Senator from South Carolina; A. O. P. Nicholson, a Senator from Tennessee; William K. Sebastian* and Charles B. Mitchel, Senators from Arkansas; and John Hemphill and Louis T. Wigfall, Senators from Texas, have failed to appear in their seats in the Senate, and to aid the Government in this important crisis, and it is apparent to the Senate that said Senators are engaged in said conspiracy for the destruction of the Union and Government, or with full knowledge of such conspiracy have failed to advise the Government of its progress or aid in its suppression: Therefore,

"Resolved, That the said Mason, Hunter, Clingman, Bragg, Chestnut, Nicholson, Sebastian, Mitchel, Hemphill, and Wigfall be, and they hereby are, each and all of them, expelled from the Senate of the United States."

THURSDAY, July 11, 1861.

On motion by Mr. Clark, the Senate proceeded to consider the resolution yesterday submitted by him to expel certain Senators from the Senate of the United States. On motion by Mr. Latham to amend the resolution by inserting before the word *This preamble and resolution was revoked and annulled, so far as Mr. Sebastian was concerned, by resolution of the Senate, March 3, 1877. See report No. 513, 1st sess. 44th Cong. The same resolution provided for settling the unpaid accounts of Mr. Sebastian.

said," the second line, the words "names of," and by striking out the words "expelled from the Senate of the United States," and inserting "stricken from the roll, and their seats declared vacant," so that the resolution will read:

แ

Therefore, resolved, That the names of said Mason, Hunter, Clingman, Bragg, Chestnut, Nicholson, Sebastian, Mitchel, Hemphill, and Wigfall be, and they hereby are, each and all of them, stricken from the roll, and their seats declared vacant," It was determined in the negative-yeas 11, nays 32.

On motion by Mr. Latham, the yeas and nays being desired by one-fifth of the Senators present,

Those who voted in the affirmative are Messrs. Bayard, Breckinridge, Bright, Johnson of Tennessee, Johnson of Missouri, Latham, Nesmith, Polk, Powell, Rice, and Saulsbury.

Those who voted in the negative are Messrs. Anthony, Bingham, Browning, Chandler, Clark, Collamer, Cowan, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Grimes, Hale, Harlan, Harris, Howe, King, Lane of Indiana, Lane of Kansas, McDougall, Morrill, Pomeroy, Sherman, Simmons, Sumner, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Wade, Wilkinson, Wilmot, and Wilson.

So the amendment proposed by Mr. Latham was not agreed to.

On the question to agree to the resolution, it was determined in the affirmative— yeas 32, nays 10.

On motion by Mr. Clark, the yeas and nays being desired by one-fifth of the Senators present,

Those who voted in the affirmative are Messrs. Anthony, Bingham, Browning, Chandler, Clark, Collamer, Cowan, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Grimes, Hale, Harlan, Harris, Howe, King, Lane of Indiana, Lane of Kansas, McDougall, Morrill, Pomeroy, Sherman, Simmons, Sumner, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Wade, Wilkinson, Wilmot, and Wilson.

Those who voted in the negative are Messrs. Bayard, Breckinridge, Bright, Johnson of Tennessee, Johnson of Missouri, Latham, Nesmith, Polk, Powell, and Rice. So the resolution was agreed to, two-thirds of the Senators present having voted in the affirmative; and it was

"Therefore, resolved, That the said Mason, Hunter, Clingman, Bragg, Chestnut, Nicholson, Sebastian, Mitchel, Hemphill, and Wigfall be, and they hereby are, each and all of them, expelled from the Senate of the United States."

[The debate is found on pages 62-64 of the Congressional Globe, 1st sess. 37th Cong.?