[Special session of Senate, March, 1857.]

SIMON CAMERON,

Senator from Pennsylvania from March 17, 1845, till March 3, 1849; from March 4, 1857, till he resigned in March, 1861; and from March 4, 1867, till he resigned in March, 1877.

Soon after Mr. Cameron had taken his seat in the Senate for the term beginning March 4, 1857, a protest against the legality of his election by certain members of the legislature of Pennsylvania was presented to the Senate. The subject was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. The committee reported that the grounds of the protest were (1) that there was not a concurrent majority of each house in favor of Mr. Cameron; (2) that the State senate did not comply in certain particulars with an act of the State regulating the election of Senators; and (3) that the election was procured "by corrupt and unlawful means." The committee reported in regard to the first ground of the protest that it was "untenable under the statute of Pennsylvania and the uniform practical construction of the Federal Constitution for the last half century;" in regard to the second ground of the protest they reported that the provisions of law alleged to have been disregarded were purely directory, and that a failure to comply with them would not vitiate an election; and in regard to the third ground of the protest, reported that the "allegation was entirely too vague and indefinite" to justify the recommendation of an investigation by the United States Senate. The report ended with the resolution that the committee be discharged from the further consideration of the subject. The minority of the committee concurred with the majority in reference to the two first points, but submitted a report dissenting from the conclusion of the majority in regard to the third point, on the ground that when a protest of this nature comes from a responsible source the Senate should investigate the charges and allow the persons protesting an opportunity of submitting the proof upon which the charges rest. After a brief debate the resolution reported by the committee was adopted.

The history of the case here given consists of a transcript of the proceedings of the Senate relating to it from the Senate Journal, 3d sess. 34th Cong., 1856-'57, and the report of the committee in the case from Senate Reports, 3d sess. 34th Cong., Report No. 1 of the special session.

The debates in the case are found within pages 387-391 of the Appendix to the Congressional Globe, 3d sess. 34th Cong., 1856-'57.

Special references to the debate of each day are inserted below.

FRIDAY, January 16, 1857. The President pro tempore presented the credentials of the Hon. Simon Cameron, elected a Senator by the legislature of Pennsylvania for the term of six years commencing on the 4th day of March next; which were read.

WEDNESDAY, March 4, 1857.

The oath prescribed by law was administered to Simon Cameron, and he took his seat in the Senate.

FRIDAY, March 6, 1857.

Mr. Bigler presented a protest of fifty-four members of the house of representatives, and a protest of fifteen members of the senate of the State of Pennsylvania against the proceedings under which the Hon. Simon Cameron claims to represent the State in the Senate of the United States from the 4th of March, 1857.

Ordered, That they lie on the table.

On motion by Mr. Cameron,

MONDAY, March 9, 1857.

Ordered, That the protest of certain members of the house of representatives of the State of Pennsylvania, and the protest of members of the senate of the said State, presented the 6th of March, be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

WEDNESDAY, March 11, 1857.

Mr. Benjamin, from the Committee on the Judiciary, to whom were referred a protest of members of the senate, and a protest of members of the house of representatives of the State of Pennsylvania against the election of the Hon. Simon Cameron as a Senator in Congress, submitted a report (No. 1), accompanied by the following resolution:

"Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from the further consideration of the subject."

Ordered, That the report be printed.

Mr. Pugh submitted the views of the minority of the Committee on the Judiciary on the same subject; which were ordered to be printed with the report of the committee. Mr. Foot submitted the following resolution for consideration:

"Resolved, That Simon Cameron is entitled to a seat upon this floor as a legally chosen Senator from the State of Pennsylvania."

[The debate is found on pages 388, 389 of the Appendix to the Congressional Globe referred to in the head-note.]

REPORT OF COMMITTEE.

[The committee consisted of Messrs. Butler (chairman), Bayard, Toombs, Pugh, Benjamin, Collamer, and Trumbull.]

Report of the Committee on the Judiciary, on the protests of certain members of the legislature of Pennsylvania against the election of the Hon. Simon Cameron as a Senator in Congress. MARCH 11, 1857.-Submitted, and ordered to be printed with the views of the minority of the committee.

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the protest of certain members of the senate and house of representatives of the State of Pennsylvania, alleging certain irregularities and illegalities in the election of the Hon. Simon Cameron, a Senator from said State, report:

That the grounds of protest are stated as follows, viz:

First. That there was not a concurrent majority of each house in favor of the candidate declared to be elected.

Second. That the senate did not comply with the requirements of the act of 2d July, 1839, by appointing a teller and making a nomination of persons to fill said office, and giving notice of said appointment and nomination at least one day previous to the meeting of said convention.

In addition to the two grounds aforesaid, the protest presented by the members of the house of representatives charges,

Third. That the election of the said Simon Cameron was procured, as they are informed and believe, by corrupt and unlawful means, influencing the action and votes of certain members of the house of representatives of this State; and they request that an investigation be ordered by your honorable body, not only into the regularity of the said election, but into the charges herein presented, in order that an opportunity may be afforded of submitting the proof upon which they rest."

In relation to the first two grounds of protest, the committee are unanimously of opinion that no facts are presented tending in the slightest degree to impair the validity of the election of Mr. Cameron.

It is true that the law of Pennsylvania on the subject of the election of Senators requires that each branch of the legislature shall appoint one teller and nominate at least one person to fill such office, and communicate to the other house the names of the persons so appointed and nominated at least one day previous to the joint meeting; but the same law also provides that at the hour of twelve, on the second Tuesday in January next preceding the expiration of the constitutional term of a Senator, the members of both houses shall meet in convention in the chamber of the house of representatives and choose a Senator viva voce from the persons so nominated as aforesaid; and also expressly provides that the person who shall receive the votes of a majority of the members present shall be declared duly elected.

From the extracts furnished by the protesting parties, taken from the journals of the two houses, it appears that the two houses did meet in joint convention on the day and at the place appointed by law, and in accordance with resolutions passed in each house separately, and that one hundred and thirty-three members, composing the entire legislature of Pennsylvania, were present and voted, and that Simon Cameron received 67 votes, and 66 votes were given for all the other candidates; and that Simon Cameron, having thus obtained a majority of the votes of all the members present, was declared duly elected Senator.

It appears from the journal of the senate that the appointment of a teller and the nomination of candidates, and the communication to the other house of the appointment and nomination so made, all took place on the day of the election, instead of one day previous to the election, as required by the law of the State; but your committee regard this provision of law as purely directory in its nature, and are of opinion that a failure to comply with this formality would under no circumstances suffice to vitiate an election otherwise legal and valid; but where, as in the present case, both houses proceeded without objection from any source to perform their constitutional duty of electing a Senator, the necessity of complying with any particular forms required by law may fairly be considered as waived by common consent, and it is entirely too late, after the result of the voting has been ascertained, to raise a question as to the mode of proceeding.

The objection that there was not a concurrent majority of each house in favor of the candidate declared to be elected is equally untenable under the statute of Pennsylvania, and the uniform practical construction of the Federal Constitution for the last half century.

The third ground of protest is signed by members of the house of representatives of Pennsylvania, but not by the members of the senate of that State.

It is a general allegation "that the election of the said Simon Cameron was procured, as they are informed and believe, by corrupt and unlawful means, influencing the action

and votes of certain members of the house of representatives," and the Senate of the United States is asked to investigate the charge.

The committee cannot recommend that this prayer be granted. The allegation is entirely too vague and indefinite to justify such a recommendation. Not a single fact or circumstance is detailed as a basis for the general charge. Neither the nature of the means alleged to be corrupt and unlawful, nor the time, place, or manner of using them, is set forth, nor is it even alleged that the sitting member participated in the use of such corrupt means or, indeed, had any knowledge of their existence. Under no state of facts could your committee deem it consistent with propriety, or with the dignity of this body, to send out a roving commission in search of proofs of fraud in order to deprive one of its members of a seat to which he is, prima facie, entitled; still less can they recommend such a course when the parties alleging the fraud and corruption are themselves armed with ample powers for investigation. If it be, indeed, true that members of the house of representatives of Pennsylvania have been influenced by corrupt considerations or unlawful appliances, the means of investigation and redress are in the power of the very parties who seek the aid of the Senate of the United States. Let their complaint be made to the house of which they are members, and which is the tribunal peculiarly appropriate for conducting the desired investigation. That their complaint will meet the respectful consideration of that house your committee are not permitted to doubt. If upon such investigation the facts charged are proven, and if they in any manner involve the character of the recently elected member of this body from the State of Pennsylvania, the Constitution of the United States has not left the Senate without ample means for protecting itself against the presence of unworthy members in its midst. In the mean time your committee see no reason for initiating any proceeding on the subject, and submit the following resolution:

Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from the further consideration of the subject.

VIEWS OF THE MINORITY.

The undersigned, a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, dissents from the conclusion at which his colleagues have arrived in reference to the contested election of a Senator for the State of Pennsylvania.

In the protest submitted by forty-four members of the house of representatives in that State will be found an allegation in these words:

"The undersigned further charge that the election of the said Simon Cameron was procured, as they are informed and believe, by corrupt and unlawful means influencing the action and votes of certain members of the house of representatives in this State; and they request that an investigation be ordered by your honorable body, not only into the regularity of the said election, but into the charges herein presented, in order that an opportunity may be afforded of submitting the proof upon which they rest."

It is objected by the majority of the committee that this paragraph does not specifically relate the facts on which a charge of corruption can be predicated.

If the case were only between contestor and contestee, as individuals, there might be some force in the objection; but it is one in which a number of the qualified electors, themselves public agents, inform the Senate that corrupt as well as unlawful means have been used in the election.

The accusation comes from a responsible source, and is too serious, too distinctly and directly made, to be treated with indifference. It concerns the honor of the Senate and the security of the Government that no rule of merely technical character, applicable as between individuals, should prevent a thorough investigation of the case. This would seem to be a duty the more imperative in view of the statute, enacted at the late session, in which very stringent and unusual provisions have been made for the detection of corrupt practices by members of Congress.

The undersigned concurs with the majority in reference to the other points of contest. G. E. PUGH.

FRIDAY, March 13, 1857.

The Senate proceeded to consider the resolution reported by the Committee on the Judiciary, to whom were referred the protests of certain senators and members of the house of representatives of the State of Pennsylvania, against the election of the Hon. Simon Cameron as a Senator in Congress from that State; and, in concurrence therewith, Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from the further consideration of the subject.

Mr. Foot, on his motion, obtained leave to withdraw the 1esolution, submitted by him the 11th instant, respecting the right of the Hon. Simon Cameron to a seat in the Senate.

[The debate that took place on the adoption of the resolution is found on page 391 of the Appendix to the Congressional Globe referred to in the head-note.]

[Thirty-fifth Congress-First session.]

JAMES SHIELDS,

Senator from Minnesota from May 12, 1858, till March 3, 1859.

February 26, 1857, Congress passed an act entitled "An act to authorize the people of Minnesota to form a constitution and State government preparatory to their admission into the Union on an equal footing with the original States." The constitution, when formed, having been referred to the Committee on Territories, that committee reported a bill January 26, 1858, entitled "A bill for the admission of Minnesota into the Union," which was approved May 11, 1858. February 25, 1858, a paper purporting to be the credentials of Mr. Shields as a Senator from the State of Minnesota, and a letter from him setting forth the grounds upon which he claimed a right to a seat in the Senate, were presented. He claimed that Minnesota was at that time a State by virtue of the act of February 26, 1857; that that act enabled her on certain terms and conditions to be at once a State; that she had performed those conditions. March 4, 1858, the committee unanimously reported a resolution that Minnesota was not a State of the Union under the Constitution and laws, the grounds on which the resolution was based not being given. No action was taken on the resolution. Mr. Shields was admitted to the seat after the bill admitting the State was approved. It appears from the debates which took place on the question whether the subject was a privileged question, that some Senators thought Mr. Shields entitled to the seat for the reasons given in his letter; that some thought that no act of admission would have been necessary if the Territory had complied with the conditions of the enabling act, but that it had not done so; that others thought that an act of admission was essential even if the conditions of the enabling act had been complied with. Extracts from speeches will show more at length the grounds upon which different Senators proceeded.

May 12, 1858, the day on which the Minnesota Senators were sworn, a debate arose on the question whether the Senators were duly elected in December. 1857, or whether an election must take place after the passage of the act of admission. This debate is found on pages 2076, 2077 of the Congressional Globe, part 3, 1st sess. 35th Cong. There was no division of the Senate on the question. The history of the case here given consists of a transcript of the proceedings of the Senate relating to it from the Senate Journal, 1st sess. 35th Cong.; the report of the committee, from Senate Reports, 1st sess. 35th Cong., vol. 1, No. 104; the letter of Mr. Shields, from the Congressional Globe, 1st sess. 35th Cong., part 1, pages 861, 862, and extracts from speeches from the same volume of the Globe. The debates in the case are found on pages 861-867 of the Congressional Globe, part 1, 1st sess. 35th Cong.

LETTER OF MR. SHIELDS.

WASHINGTON, February 24, 1858. SIR: I beg leave to offer a few reasons to show that Minnesota is one of the sovereign States of this Union. My first proposition is, that there are only two forms of political organization under which a community of American citizens can legitimately exist within the jurisdiction and under the Constitution of the United States. The one is the organization of a Territory of the Union; the other, that of a State of the Union. These are the only determinate shapes into which political communities can be molded under our Constitution. Each has its appropriate place in our federal system. A community of American citizens living under a territorial organization is in direct and legitimate connection with the Federal Government. That same community, transformed into a State, is also in direct legitimate connection with the Federal Government. In the transition from a Territory to a State, there is no point of time at which this connection can by any possibility be broken. The territorial government continues in full force until it is superseded by a State government; and whenever the people constitute themselves lawfully into a State, it is, Io instanti, a State of the Union. There is no such political anomaly as a State out of the Union, or not yet in the Union. These erroneous terms have been applied so vaguely to communities whose condition is not easily determined that the public begin to think there must be some intermediate provisional, probationary state, in which communities are sometimes kept on their passage from the condition of Territories to that of sovereign States of the Union. California was denominated, not many years ago, a State out of the Union. Minnesota is, I suppose, at present considered by some a State not yet in the Union, or, perhaps, a provisional State. Certainly the representatives of Minnesota are at present in a provisional dilemma, not knowing whether they represent a State in the Union or out of the Union.

I now beg leave to refer you to the law of 1857 authorizing the people of Minnesota to form a State government. The first section contains the following language: "The inhabitants of Minnesota are hereby authorized to form for themselves a constitution and State government by the name of Minnesota, and to come into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, according to the Federal Constitution." Here the authority is absolute and unconditional, first, to form a constitution and State govern

ment; secondly, to come into the Union on an equal footing with the original States; authority to make a State and authority to come into the Union. No language could be more positive; no authority could be more plenary; no act could be more determinate. The people have performed their engagements in good faith, and they have a right to expect a like compliance on the part of Congress. These engagements, too, affect the most sacred of all political rights-the constitutional rights of a sovereign State. The third section of the Minnesota enabling act strengthens and corroborates this position. It provides that a convention of delegates shall assemble at the capital of said Territory on the second Monday of July next (1857), and first determine by a vote whether it is the wish of the people of the proposed State to be admitted into the Union "at that time." Mark the language: not thereafter; not upon the happening of any future contingency; but "at that time," to wit, on the second Monday in July, 1857; "and if so," that is, if they shall so determine, "shall proceed to form a constitution, and to take all necessary steps for the establishment of a State government in conformity with the Federal Constitution, subject to the approval and ratification of the people of the proposed State."

Here two things are to be specially observed: first, the determination to become a State at that time; not the determination at that time to become a State, but a State at that time. Second, the submission to the approval and ratification of the people. When was Minnesota to become a State? At that time. How was her constitution to be ratified? By submission to the people. She has complied with every requirement. She entered the Union at the time prescribed; her constitution is ratified in the manner prescribed; and yet she is now as completely postponed and ignored as if she had disregarded all her obligations. Permit me to cite two precedents, which, I hope, will prove conclusive in this case. In 1802 an enabling act was passed for Ohio somewhat similar

to, but not so decisive as, the Minnesota act. The authority given was to form a constitution and State government; and then follows this language: "The State, when formed, shall be admitted into the Union on the same footing with the original States.' This was then considered an authorized admission of the State, and the only act of admission that ever took place in the case of Ohio; and that State is now in the Union under and by virtue of the authority of that enabling act.

The enabling act in the case of Indiana contains the following language: "The State, when formed, shall be admitted into the Union." Mark the difference in the two acts. In the case of Minnesota authority is given to come in at the present time. In the case of Indiana a promise is given for her admission at some future time; under the law Indiana adopted a constitution and elected Representatives, as Minnesota has done.

On the 2d December, 1816, Mr. Hendricks, Representative from the new State, presented his credentials in the House of Representatives, was sworn in, was appointed on a committee, and was allowed to vote and act as a member of that body; and yet it was not until ten days afterward (on the 12th of the same month) that a joint resolution was passed by both branches of Congress formally admitting Indiana. This kind of resolution was then considered form-nothing but mere form-something which Congress has the power to observe or omit at pleasure, but something with which the State has no concern, and which cannot affect its right. This was then the opinion of John C. Calhoun, at that time a member of the other House; and this, we may fairly presume, would be his opinion if he were a member of the Senate now. When the precedent was established Daniel Webster was also a member of the House, and gave it the weight of his authority. But Minnesota stands upon far stronger grounds than Ohio or Indiana-the ground of Congressional authority. If this authority is good Minnesota cannot fail. This is a great question-a question of constitutional right, of national faith. Congressional faith, I sincerely hope, will be held sacred and inviolate in the case of Minnesota by the prompt admission of her representatives. My sense of duty to my constituents compels me, through you, to make this appeal to the Senate.

I have the honor to be, your obedient servant,

Hon. JOHN J. CRITTENDEN.

JAMES SHIELDS,
Senator from Minnesota.

[Extract from remarks of Mr. Pugh, of Ohio, maintaining that the application of Mr. Shields is a question of privilege, but that Minnesota was not a State, not having complied with the conditions of the enabling act, page 862, part 1, of the Globe referred to in the head-note.]

"I say that an enabling act was justified when it was first proposed, on the ground that it was an act of admission, a conditional act of admission, and when the State to be formed complied with the conditions, she was in the Union without anything else. That is the beginning of all the enabling acts; and that is the only excuse Congress ever had for passing one. That is one reason why, in my judgment, it is not necessary for Kan