Page images
PDF
EPUB

[Thirty-ninth Congress-First session.]

DAVID T. PATTERSON,

Senator from Tennessee from July 28, 1866, to March 3, 1869.

July 26, 1866, the credentials of Mr. Patterson, elected to fill the unexpired portion of the term beginning March 4, 1863, were presented and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, who were Instructed to inquire into his qualifications. The following day the committee reported that the only question in relation to his qualifications arose from the fact of his having held the office of circuit judge in the State of Tennessee after that State had passed an ordinance of secession; that his first term of said office having expired after the ordinance of secession was passed, he was induced by Union men to become a candidate for re-election, and was re-elected in May, 1862; that he was himself a "firm, avowed, and influential Union man;" that he allowed himself to become a candidate for re-election "solely upon the motive that he could thereby afford some aid and protection to the Union people;" that the constitution and judicial system of Tennessee remained the same after the secession of the State as before, and that no law was enforced by him as judge except such as were in force before the secession of the State. The committee recommend the adoption of a resolution that Mr. Patterson was duly qualified and entitled to hold the seat. During debate on the adoption of the resolution reported by the committee, a joint resolution was introduced in the Senate that Mr. Patterson be admitted upon his taking so much of the oath prescribed by the act of July 2, 1862, as is not included in the words, "that I have neither sought, nor accepted, nor attempted to exercise the functions of any office whatever, under any authority or pretended authority in hos tility to the United States." This joint resolution passed the Senate, but was laid or the table in the House the same day. The Senate then passed the resolution reported by the committee, it having been amended so as to read, "Resolved, That the Hon. David T. Patterson, upon taking the oaths required by the Constitution and laws, be admitted to a seat in the Senate of the United States." The history of the case here given consists of a transcript of the proceedings of the Senate relating to it from Senate Journals, 1st sess. 39th Cong., and the report of the committee, from Senate Re ports, 1st sess. 39th Cong., volume 1, No. 139.

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

THURSDAY, July 26, 1866.

Mr. Fowler presented the credentials of the Hon. David T. Patterson, elected a Senator by the legislature of the State of Tennessee for the unexpired term of six years commencing on the 4th day of March, 1863.

The credentials were read.

On motion by Mr. Sumner that the credentials be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to inquire into the qualifications of Mr. Patterson,

After debate, it was determined in the affirmative-yeas 26, nays 14.

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

Those who voted in the affirmative are Messrs. Brown, Chandler, Conness, Creswell, Edmunds, Fessenden, Foster, Harris, Henderson, Howard, Howe, Kirkwood, Morgan, Morrill, Nye, Poland, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Ross, Sprague, Stewart, Sumner, Trumbull, Wade, Williams, and Wilson.

Those who voted in the negative are Messrs. Buckalew, Cowan, Davis, Doolittle, Guthrie, Hendricks, Johnson, Lane, McDougall, Nesmith, Norton, Sherman, Van Winkle, and Willey.

So it was

Ordered, That the credentials be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to inquire into the qualifications of Mr. Patterson.

[The debate is found on pages 4162-4169 of the Congressional Globe referred to in the head-note.]

FRIDAY, July 27, 1866.

Mr. Poland, from the Committee on the Judiciary, to whom were referred the credentials of the Hon. David T. Patterson, elected a Senator by the legislature of the State of Tennessee, with instructions to inquire into the qualifications of Mr. Patterson, submitted a report (No. 139) accompanied by the following resolution:

Resolved, That the Hon. David T. Patterson is duly qualified and entitled to hold a seat in the Senate of the United States from the State of Tennessee."

[ocr errors]

The Senate proceeded to consider the said resolution; and,

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

"That the Hon. David T. Patterson, upon taking the oaths required by the Constitu

tion and laws, be admitted to a seat in the Senate of the United States,"

It was determined in the affirmative; ard,

After debate,

Ordered, That the further consideration of the resolution be postponed to to-morrow. Ordered, That the report be printed.

[The debate is found on pages 4213-4216 of the Congressional Globe referred to in the head-note.]

Mr. Trumbull asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to bring in a joint resolution (S. 144) in relation to the admission of the Hon. David T. Patterson to a seat in the Senate; which was read the first and second times by unanimous consent, and considered as in Committee of the Whole; and no amendment being made, it was reported to the Senate.

Ordered, That the resolution be engrossed and read a third time.

The said resolution was read the third time, by unanimous consent.

On the question, Shall the resolution pass? it was determined in the affirmative—yeas 35, nays 2.

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

Those who voted in the affirmative are Messrs. Anthony, Buckalew, Clark, Conness, Cowan, Creswell, Davis, Doolittle, Edmunds, Foster, Fowler, Guthrie, Harris, Henderson, Hendricks, Howe, Johnson, Kirkwood, Lane, Morgan, Nesmith, Norton, Nye, Poland, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Riddle, Sherman, Stewart, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Willey, Williams, Wilson, and Yates.

Those who voted in the negative are Messrs. Chandler and Wade.

So it was

Resolved, That the resolution pass, and that the title thereof be as aforesaid.

[This joint resolution was laid on the table in the House.]

[The debate and joint resolution are found on page 4219 of the Congressional Globe referred to in the head-note.]

[blocks in formation]

On motion by Mr. Poland, the Senate resumed the consideration of the resolution reported by the Committee on the Judiciary for the admission of the Hon. David T. Patterson to a seat in the Senate from the State of Tennessee; and,

On the question to agree to the resolution as amended, on the motion of Mr. Clark, After debate, it was determined in the affirmative-yeas 21, nays 11.

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

Those who voted in the affirmative are Messrs. Buckalew, Cowan, Davis, Doolittle, Edmunds, Fessenden, Foster, Guthrie, Harris, Henderson, Howe, Johnson, Kirkwood, Lane, Norton, Poland, Riddle, Sherman, Van Winkle, Willey, and Williams.

Those who voted in the negative are Messrs. Chandler, Creswell, Howard, Nye, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Ross, Sumner, Trumbull, Wade, and Yates.

So it was

Resolved, That the Hon. David T. Patterson, upon taking the oaths required by the Constitution and laws, be admitted to a seat in the Senate of the United States. [The debate is found on pages 4242-4245 of the Congressional Globe referred to in the head-note.]

SATURDAY, July 28, 1866.

The Hon. David T. Patterson, elected a Senator by the legislature of the State of Tennessee for the unexpired term ending March 3, 1869, appeared, and the oaths prescribed by law being administered by the President pro tempore to Mr. Patterson, he took his seat in the Senate.

REPORT OF COMMITTEE.

[The committee consisted of Messrs. Trumbull (chairman), Harris, Clark, Johnson, Poland, Stewart, and Hendricks.]

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.

JULY 27, 1866.-Submitted.

JULY 28, 1866.-Ordered to be printed.

Mr. Poland submitted the following report:

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom were referred the credentials of Hon. David T. Patterson, Senator-elect from the State of Tennessee, with instructions to report whether said Patterson is legally qualified to hold the office of United States Senator

from said State, have had the same under consideration, and respectfully report as follows:

The only question in relation to the qualifications of Mr. Patterson, or his right to hold his seat in the Senate, arises from the fact of his having held the office of circuit judge in the State of Tennessee after that State had passed an ordinance of secession and become a member of the confederacy.

Circuit judges in Tennessee are elected by the people of the several circuits, and hold their offices for the term of eight years.

Judge Patterson was elected judge in one of the circuits in Eastern Tennessee in May, 1854, and his term of office had not expired when the State passed the ordinance of secession. The constitution of the State of Tennessee remained the same after the secession of the State as before, and there was no change made in the form of the State government, or in their judicial system. A large majority of the people of East Tennessee were ardently devoted to the Union and deemed it very important for their interest and that of the Union cause that the civil offices in that section of the State should be filled with Union men.

Judge Patterson was a firm, avowed, and influential Union man, and he was urgently pressed by the Union men of that circuit to run as a candidate for re-election as circuit judge, and he finally, though reluctantly, consented to do so. The opposing candidate was an avowed secessionist, and the issue in the election was between Union and secession. The election was held in May, 1862, and Judge Patterson was elected over his rebel competitor by a large majority. At the same election most of the local offices in that section were filled by the election of Union men. At that time it was believed by the Union men of East Tennessee that they would soon be relieved from rebel military rule by the arrival of Union forces; and they desired also to retain the civil power in their own hands. In this expectation they were disappointed, and soon rebel bands were scattered through that region, and the Union people were subjected to great hardships and cruel oppression. When Judge Patterson was thus re-elected judge he did not suppose he would be commissioned by the governor of the State, who was a secessionist; but, after some considerable delay, a commission was sent to him with peremptory orders to take the oath. On the receipt of his commission and order to take the oath, Judge Patterson delayed and hesitated, and consulted other leading Union men as to the proper course for him to take. They advised and urged him to take the oath; that he could thereby afford protection to some extent to Union men against acts of lawless violence on the part of the rebels, and that if he did not accept the office and take the oath the office would be filled by a rebel, and they would then be oppressed by the civil as well as the military power of the rebels. Judge Patterson yielded to their urgency and arguments, and went before a magistrate and took the oath which the Tennessee legislature had prescribed, which, in substance, was that he would support the constitution of Tennessee and the constitution of the Confederate States. Judge Patterson declared at the time to the magistrate that he owed no allegiance to the confederate government, and that he did not consider that part of the oath as binding him at all. At this time there were rebel troops in the neighborhood, and Judge Patterson had good reason to believe that his refusal to take the oath would subject him to arrest and imprisonment, if not worse treatment; but we do not find that he was actuated at all by personal considerations, but acted solely upon the motive that he could thereby afford some aid and protection to the Union people, and also prevent the office from falling into hands that would use it to oppress them.

East Tennessee at this time was in a very disturbed and distracted condition. The country was full of bands of armed rebels, and lawless violence held sway. Business was nearly suspended, and no civil business was done in the courts. Judge Patterson held a few terms of court in counties where he could organize grand juries of Union men, and in this way did something toward preserving peace and order in the community. No other business was done by him as judge after his election in 1862.

During all this time Judge Patterson was an open, avowed, and devoted adherent to the Union. He was in constant communication with the officers of the Federal troops nearest that vicinity, and obtained and furnished to them information as to the movements of the rebels. He aided in concealing Union men, and in facilitating their escape to the Union lines, when they generally entered the Union service. He aided the Union people and the Union cause in every way open to him, and too numerous for detail. By these means he became amenable to the hostility of the secessionists, and was subjected to great difficulty aud danger. He was several times arrested and held for some time in custody. At times he was obliged to conceal himself for safety, and spent nights in outbuildings and in the woods to avoid their vengeance.

In September, 1863, the Federal troops reached Knoxville, and Judge Patterson succeeded in escaping with his family to that place, and did not return to his home until after the close of the rebellion.

As before stated, the constitution and election laws and judicial system of Tennessee remained the same after the secession of the State as before, and Judge Patterson was elected judge the last time under the same State constitution and laws as existed at his first election, and no laws were enforced by him as judge except such as were in force before the secession of the State.

The committee are all satisfied that during the entire rebellion Judge Patterson was an earnest, firm, and devoted Union man, and suffered severely in support of his principles. In accepting the office of judge, and taking the official oath, he did not intend any hostility to the authority or Government of the United States, nor did he intend to acknowlege any allegiance to, or any friendship for, the confederate government, but acted throughout with a sincere desire to benefit and preserve the Union and the Government of the United States. He always denied the authority of the confederate government over him, and feels an entire willingness and ability to take the oath required upon his admission to a seat in the Senate. The committee recommend the following resolution: Resolved, That the Hon. David T. Patterson is duly qualified and entitled to hold a seat in the Senate of the United States as a Senator from the State of Tennessee.

[Fortieth Congress-First and second sessions.]

PHILIP F. THOMAS,

of Maryland.

March 18, 1867, the credentials of Mr. Thomas, elected for the term beginning March 4, 1867, were presented. The following day the credentials were referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, who were authorized by a resolution of March 20 to send for persons and papers. December 18, the committee submitted the evidence taken, and reported that they found nothing sufficient to debar Mr. Thomas from his seat unless it be found in the fact of his son having entered the service of the confederacy, and in the circumstances connected therewith, in regard to which point the committee express no opinion. A resolution was then submitted that Mr. Thomas be admitted to the seat. February 20, 1868, the Senate resolved that Mr. Thomas "having voluntarily given aid, countenance, and encouragement to persons engaged in armed hostility to the United States" was not entitled to take the oath of office or hold the seat. Some Senators maintained that in a case of doubt, where there is absence of evidence showing conclusively that a person had thus voluntarily given aid, &c., the person should be admitted if willing to take the oath of office. Extracts from speeches given below show the conduct of Mr. Thomas which was claimed to be "voluntarily giving aid," &c.

The history of the case here given consists of a transcript of the proceedings of the Senate relating to it from Senate Journals, 40th Cong.; the report of the committee from Senate Reports, 40th Cong., 2d sess., No. 5, with the exception of the evidence and documents printed with it; and extracts from speeches from Congressional Globe, 2d sess. 40th Cong., part 1, page 679, and part 2, page 1145.

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

MONDAY, March 18, 1867.

Mr. Johnson presented the credentials of the Hon. Philip F. Thomas, elected a Senator by the legislature of the State of Maryland for the term of six years commencing on the 4th day of March, 1867; which were read.

On motion by Mr. Howard that the credentials be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary,

After debate,

On motion by Mr. Grimes,

Ordered, That the further consideration of the motion be postponed to to-morrow. [The debate is found on pages 171-180 of the Congressional Globe, 1st sess. 40th Cong.]

TUESDAY, March 19, 1867.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the motion of Mr. Howard of yesterday, to refer the credentials of the Hon. Philip Francis Thomas, elected a Senator by the legislature of the State of Maryland, for the term commencing on the 4th day of March, 1867, to the Committee on the Judiciary; and the motion was agreed to.

WEDNESDAY, March 20, 1867. Mr. Howard submitted the following resolution; which was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to:

Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary, to whom have been referred the credentials of Hon. P. F. Thomas, lately chosen a Senator of the United States by the legislature of Maryland, be authorized to send for persons and papers for the purposes of said reference."

WEDNESDAY, March 27, 1867.

Mr. Howard presented a letter from the president of the National Bank of Commerce of New York, addressed to him, accompanied by the annual statement to the shareholders of the Bank of Commerce, in New York, May 12, 1862; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

[A statement by Mr. Howard is found on page 372 of the Congressional Globe, 1st sess. 40th Cong.]

TUESDAY, April 2, 1867.

Mr. Johnson presented a letter addressed to him by the Hon. I hilip F. Thomas, Senator-elect from the State of Maryland, relating to a report of the Bank of Commerce to their shareholders, dated March 12, 1862, and presented to the Senate on the 27th of March last by the Hon. Mr. Howard; which, with the accompanying papers, was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

[The debate is found on pages 821-824 of the Congressional Globe, 1st sess. 40th Cong.]

« PreviousContinue »