sas, or any other new State, when she presents herself, to have any enabling act. Nothing is requisite but an act of admission.

'But cases have arisen where both Houses of Congress have been obliged to consider whether the proposed State has complied with the conditions in the previous act of admission; and that is the question in relation to Minnesota. I have read the report of the Committee on Territories with very great care, and examined the documents submitted with that report; and, although I acknowledge there is no error which we may not heal by a joint resolution of admission, I do not think Minnesota has complied with the terms of the enabling act. I do not think she ever held a convention of delegates as required by that law. I do not consider the breach healed by the subsequent vote that was taken in October. If we object to the form of the vote that was taken in Kansas on the 21st of December, the form of the vote that was taken in Minnesota is just as objectionable; but I agree that these are not fatal defects. They are defects which we can heal by a joint resolution, or a subsequent act of Congress. Therefore, whilst I do believe that this is a question of privilege, that when this gentleman presents himself here, and claims to be a Senator from a State which we have so far recognized as to authorize her to become one on the performance of certain conditions, his claim is a question of privilege. I do not agree that Minnesota has so far complied with the terms of admission as to entitle her Senators and Representatives to be sworn without some waiver by Congress in the shape of a joint resolution. Therefore, whilst I shall vote to consider it a question of privilege, I cannot, on the facts stated by the Committee on Territories, vote that Minnesota is entitled to have her Representatives and Senators here."

[Extract from remarks of Mr. Crittenden, of Kentucky, in support of the right of Mr. Shields to a seat, pages 863, 864, part 1, of the Congressional Globe referred to in the head-note.]

"The point that is made on the part of the individual applying to take his seat as a Senator is, that Minnesota is a State in virtue of the enabling act; that that act enabled her on certain terms and conditions to be at once a State, and to come into the Union as such under the Federal Constitution. She has performed those conditions. She has become a State, according to his view and his argument, and is entitled to be represented on this floor as a State. As Mr. Hendricks was permitted in the other House to take his seat, and to vote, and the votes of electors for President and Vice-President were allowed to be counted, although they were elected before any formal admission by Congress, I see no reason why the gentleman in question has not a just, constitutional, and lawful privilege to take his seat here; and, if it be denied to him, to appeal to you and to this body as upon a question of privilege to maintain and vindicate his right.

"The allowing him to take his seat here is one thing and a formal admission of the State another. There may be, and are, certain purposes for which it is very convenient to pass an act of formal admission into the Union. That may be done; but it does not follow because that may be done that the Senator shall not be permitted, before this formal act be done, to take his seat and represent his State. You know that the constitution has been made; you know, and the Senate know, that that constitution is of the character required by the enabling law, and by the Constitution of the United States we know the capacity of the principal to appoint such representatives; we know, however, that in transactions, of such consequence as the admission of States it may be well enough for us to adhere to the principle of giving a subsequent consent, and admitting the State by subsequent act. We can retain that; but where is the reason why this State shall be unrepresented in either House, until you can have passed that act? The forms require delay. Here is a State entitled to admission, and if it is entitled to admission it is entitled to representatives on this floor. It is the privilege of the State to require it; it is the privilege of the person she elects to represent her to require it, and that is all that is done.

"The first question required by the enabling act, in respect to Minnesota in forming her constitution, to be decided, is whether the people of the Territory described desire to be formed and admitted as a State into the Union at once. That question was put, and that question was decided in the affirmative. The people of Minnesota said, 'We desire to be admitted at once; it is not now our wish hereafter to be admitted, but it is our desire, our determination, to be admitted now, at once, into the Union. That is the question which Congress directed to be put. That is the question which was decided, and every other condition required by Congress was fully complied with, as the constitution now before you shows.

"What evasion then is it, Mr. President, to decline to receive her representatives on this floor on an equal footing with those of the other States of this Union. I confess it seems to me they have as perfect a right as I have to a seat here, and if I might come from my State, with all the legally required authentications of my right, and present them to you, and from negligence, from apathy, from opposition, or from any other

cause, you were to refuse to administer to me the oath, the argument of the gentleman from Virginia would apply-'Oh, this is no breach of privilege; you are not a Senator; your State has certified you to be a Senator; the legislature has declared you to be a Senator; but the Federal authorities require you to take an oath, and that oath is necessary to make you a Senator.' No, sir; I am as much a Senator before I take the oath as I am afterwards. It contributes nothing to make me a Senator. If I fail to take that oath and presume to act without it, I am guilty of an offense; but I am a Senator before. Can you treat any gentleman elected to this body in this manner-refuse to administer to him the oath, and then tell him, 'For that cause I have annulled you as a Senator, and you can make no question of privilege in regard to it; one must be a Senator before a question of privilege can attach to him; you are not one, because I have not sworn you; and I will not swear you, because I do not intend that you shall act as a Senator? If that is not a breach of privilege it is utterly incomprehensible to me what can be. It is a breach of privilege-a flagrant one; and it is not less a breach of privilege because there is the power in those who commit it to avoid responsibility for it."

[Extract from remarks of Mr. Toombs, of Georgia, citing the case of Ohio, page 866, part 1, of the Congressional Globe referred to in the head-note.]

"In 1802, when Ohio, under an enabling act, had made a constitution and went on under the regular forms to constitute a State government, a committee of this body was appointed. You will not find it in the printed Journals, but it is now in manuscript in the Secretary's office. The committee were to inquire whether or not Ohio was a State. They said Congress had passed an enabling act, that Ohio had complied with the conditions, and that nothing else was necessary but to extend the laws of the United States over her. They did that, and swore in the members. They decided that she had complied with all the conditions, and was a State."

[Extract from remarks of Mr. Brown, of Mississippi, maintaining that Minnesota could not become a State until the passage of an act of admission, page 866, part Ï, of the Congressional Globe referred to in the head-note.]

"Now, is Minnesota a State of the Union? I shall vote for the resolution proposed by the Senator from Georgia, but I do it in deference to the judgment of other gentlemen, and to get clear of the question now, and not because there is one single shade of a shadow of doubt on my mind on the subject. Minnesota is not a State of the Union. If she is, she must have been made so by the enabling act. There is no pretense that she has become a State in any other way. Who knows? How has it been Congressionally ascertained that she has complied with the enabling act? Where is the judgment on that subject? How has it been ascertained that her constitution does not infringe or violate the Constitution of the United States? When was it ascertained and put upon the record that her constitution is republican in its form? All these things may be true, but they have not been ascertained. There is nothing on the record to show that they are true. Where is the evidence that in fixing her boundaries she has not run into the adjoining States and cut off a part of Iowa and Wisconsin? Has it been ascertained that that is not true? Suppose, without inquiry, just by virtue of the enabling act, she is now in the Union, and it turns out that her constitution is not republican in form, that her boundaries violate the boundaries of the adjoining States, that she has in other respects violated the Constitution of the United States: then what? Is she oat of the Union? Do you break up the Union by turning her out to-morrow as soon as you ascertain that these things are true? If she is in the Union, she is in from the day her constitution was passed by the members of the convention which made it, for you have done nothing to give sanction to it since that. If she is in by virtue of the enabling act she is in from the very hour when the convention made the constitution; and then I suppose the very instant you find out that her constitution is in violation of the Constitution of the United States she goes out. That is an act of dissolution.

"I speak of these matters simply to show what strikes me to be the absurdity of declaring a State in the Union in this sort of informal way. If she cannot be in the Union with a constitution anti-republican; if she cannot be in with boundaries which infringe the boundaries of other States; if she cannot be in because her constitution provides for orders of nobility, stars, and garters, and all that; if she cannot be in for any one of the hundred reasons which I could name, then there must be a necessity for ascertaining that these objections do not exist before she is in at all. Who has ascertained it? It is the duty of Congress under the clause of the Constitution which authorizes it to admit new States to ascertain all these points. When they have done it and put that ascertainment in the form of a judgment on the records, the State is in, and not till then. About this I have no doubt, and I am astonished to find that anybody else has; but still in deference to the opinion of other gentlemen, and to get clear of the question, I will vote for the resolution of the Senator from Georgia."

THURSDAY, February 25, 1858.

Mr. Crittenden presented, as a privileged subject, a letter from the Hon. James Shields, setting forth the grounds upon which he claims a right to a seat as a Senator from the State of Minnesota; which was read.

Mr. Crittenden also presented a paper purporting to be the credentials of the Hon. James Shields as a Senator from the State of Minnesota; which was read; and moved that the oath of office be administered to Mr. Shields, and that he be admitted to a seat in the Senate. Mr. Johnson, of Arkansas, raised the question of order, whether the subject presented by Mr. Crittenden was a privileged subject.

The Vice-President submitted the question for the decision of the Senate.

On motion by Mr. Johnson, of Arkansas, that the subject lie on the table, it was determined in the negative-yeas 22, nays 26.

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

Those who voted in the affirmative are Messrs. Allen, Biggs, Bright, Brown, Clay, Evans, Green, Hammond, Hunter, Iverson, Johnson of Arkansas, Johnson of Tennessee, Jones, Mallory, Mason, Pearce, Polk, Sebastian, Slidell, Thomson of New Jersey, Toombs, and Wright.

Those who voted in the negative are Messrs. Bell, Benjamin, Broderick, Chandler, Clark, Collamer, Crittenden, Dixon, Doolittle, Douglas, Durkee, Fessenden, Fitch, Foot, Foster, Gwin, Hamlin, Harlan, Houston, King, Pugh, Seward, Simmons, Sumner, Trumbull, and Wilson.

Whereupon

Mr. Toombs submitted the following resolution:

"Resolved, That the question of the admission of James Shields to a seat in this body, as a Senator from the State of Minnesota, be referred to the Judiciary Committee, with instructions to inquire whether or not Minnesota is a State of the Union under the Constitution and laws."

The Senate proceeded to consider the resolution; and the resolution was agreed to.

THURSDAY, March 4, 1858.

Mr. Bayard, from the Committee on the Judiciary, who were instructed by a resolution of the Senate to inquire whether or not Minnesota is a State of the Union under the Constitution and laws, submitted a report (No. 104), accompanied by the following resolution:

"Resolved, That Minnesota is not a State of the Union under the Constitution and laws."

On motion by Mr. Bayard,

Ordered, That the report be printed.

REPORT OF COMMITTEE.

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

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.

MARCH 4, 1858.-Ordered to be printed.

Mr. Bayard submitted the following report:

The Senate referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, on the 25th ultimo, the following resolution:

"Resolved, That the question of the admission of James Shields to a seat in this body as a Senator from the State of Minnesota be referred to the Judiciary Committee, with instructions to inquire whether or not Minnesota is a State of the Union under the Constitution and laws."

Having considered the question as to which they were by the foregoing resolution instructed to inquire, the committee have unanimously adopted the following resolution: Resolved, That Minnesota is not a State of the Union under the Constitution and laws.

COMPENSATION OF SENATORS.

TUESDAY, May 25, 1858.

The Vice-President laid before the Senate a letter of the Secretary of the Senate asking the direction of the Vice-President as to the time at which the compensation of the Senators from Minnesota is to commence.

Ordered, That it be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

THURSDAY, June 3, 1858. Mr. Bayard, from the Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred a letter of the Secretary of the Senate in relation to the compensation of the Senators from Minnesota, reported:

That there is no express provision in the act regulating the compensation of members of Congress applicable to the particular case presented; but, in the opinion of the committee, a correct construction of the act of August 16, 1856, forbids the allowance of compensation until the State of Minnesota was admitted into the Union, and that the compensation to the Senators from that State should commence on the day of admission, May 11, 1858.

[There was no debate on the subject of compensation, nor any action on the report.]

[Thirty-seventh Congress-First session.]

WAITMAN T. WILLEY AND JOHN S. CARLILE,

of Virginia.

July 13, 1861, the credentials of Mr. Willey, elected to fill the unexpired term ending March 3, 1863, of James M. Mason, expelled, and the credentials of Mr. Carlile, elected to fill the unexpired term ending March 3, 1865, of Robert M. T. Hunter, expelled, were presented. A motion was made that the credentials be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. The credentials stated that the elec tion had been held July 9, 1861, and that it had been "to fill the vacancy which has happened by the withdrawal and abdication" of the two preceding Senators. The motion to refer the credentials was not agreed to, and, after debate, the oaths were administered. Some Senators maintained that by admitting Messrs. Willey and Carlile to their sents the Senate would be undertaking to recognize a government of the State which was not the regular State government, even though that State government were in a state of rebellion; and that the Senate was bound to recognize the fact ithat the term of office of the governor who was in rebellion had not expired, and that the credentials were not signed by him, but by another as governor. Others favored reference to a committee on the ground that at the time of the election, July 9, 1861, there was no vacancy in the Senate from Virginia, inasmuch as Messrs. Mason and Hunter had not been expelled until July 12, and that the Senate had recognized them as Senators until that day by its action in expelling them at that time. Extracts from speeches given below will show more at length the grounds upon which Senators proceeded.

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. 37th Cong., with extracts from remarks by Messrs. Bayard,
Saulsbury, and Trumbull.
The debates are found on pages 103-109 of the Congressional Globe, 1st sess. 37th Cong.

SATURDAY, July 13, 1861.

Mr. Johnson, of Tennessee, presented the credentials of the Hon. John S. Carlile, elected a Senator by the legislature of the State of Virginia "to fill the vacancy which has happened by the withdrawal and abdication of Robert M. T. Hunter;" which were read.

Mr. Johnson, of Tennessee, presented the credentials of the Hon. Waitman T. Willey, elected a Senator by the legislature of the State of Virginia "to fill the vacancy which has happened by the withdrawal and abdication of James M. Mason;" which were read. On motion by Mr. Bayard that the credentials of the Hon. Mr. Carlile and the Hon. Mr. Willey be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, it was determined in the negative-yeas 5, nays 35.

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

Those who voted in the affirmative are Messrs. Bayard, Bright, Polk, Powell, and Saulsbury.

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

So the motion of Mr. Bayard was not agreed to.

The Vice-President then administered to Mr. Carlile and Mr. Willey the oath prescribed by law, and they took their seats in the Senate.

[Extract from remarks of Mr. Bayard, of Delaware, in support of the motion made by him that the credentials be referred to a committee; taken from page 103 of the Congressional Globe referred to in the head-note.]

"Before the Senate proceeds to swear in these gentlemen, I beg leave to enter my protest. I think these credentials ought to be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. They involve very grave questions. You are undertaking to recognize a government of the State of Virginia which is not the regular State government, even though that State government may be in what you may call a state of rebellion. You are bound to take notice of the fact that Mr. Letcher is governor of Virginia, and that his term of office, under the constitution and laws of Virginia, has not yet expired. If you say he is in rebellion, that does not authorize a portion of the people of Virginia to form a legis. lature for the purpose of electing Senators to take seats in this body. You have no authority to create a new State out of a part of an existing State. I think the questions are very grave.

"Of course, I know very well that you have the commanding majority in this House;