magistrate, all of which the father might have done, he deliberately lets him go, and then, to cap the climax of criminal complicity, furnishes the means for his journey and his equipment. He gives $100. The father is not rich, and yet he gives this considerable sum. Few soldiers started with such ample allowance. Thus it stands. The father, who has already deserted his post in the Cabinet and has refused to take the oath of allegiance to his country, contributes a soldier to the rebellion, and that soldier is his only son. To complete and assure the great contribution, he contributes a sum of money also. If all this accumulated disloyalty, beginning in a total renunciation of every patriotic duty, and finally consummated by an act of flagrant, unblushing enormity, is not 'aid and comfort' or 'countenance' or 'encouragement' to the rebellion, it is difficult to say what can be. There must be new dictionaries for these familiar words, and they must receive a definition down to this day unknown. They must be treated as thread or gossamer, when they should be links of iron.

[Fortieth Congress-Second session.]

JOHN T. JONES AND AUGUSTUS H. GARLAND vs. ALEXAN. DER MCDONALD AND BENJAMIN F. RICE,

of Arkansas.

Arkansas had been without representation in Congress from 1861. June 23, 1868, the credentials of Mr. McDonald and Mr. Rice, elected April 15, 1868, to fill the unexpired terms ending March 3, 1871 and 1873, were presented. On the same day there were presented from the files of the Senate credentials of Mr. Jones and Mr. Garland, purporting to be certificates of their elections for the same terms. The two latter credentials had been originally presented to the Senate and ordered to lie on the table in the years 1866 and 1867, soon after the respective elections. They were again ordered to lie on the table. It appears from the debate that the elections of Messrs. Jones and Garland took place when a provisional government existed in Arkansas. A motion was then made that the cre dentials of Messrs. McDonald and Rice be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. The motion was determined in the negative, and Messrs. McDonald and Rice took their seats. It appears from the debate on their credentials that some Senators were of opinion that the credentials should be referred to a committee for the reasons that they did not in some particulars conform to the act of July 25, 1866, regulating the election of Senators, and that the election had taken place before the passage of the act declaring Arkansas entitled to representation in Congress.

The history of the case here given consists of a transcript of the proceedings of the Senate relating to it from the Senate Journal, 40th Cong., 2d sess.

The debate is found on pages 3384-3389 of the Congressional Globe, part 4, 2d sess. 40th Cong.

TUESDAY, June 23, 1868.

Mr. Thayer presented the credentials of Benjamin F. Rice, elected a Senator by the legislature of the State of Arkansas for the unexpired term commencing on the 4th day of March, 1867; which were read.

Mr. Thayer presented the credentials of Alexander McDonald, elected a Senator by the legislature of the State of Arkansas for the unexpired term commencing on the 4th day of March, 1865; which were read.

Mr. Davis presented from the files of the Senate papers purporting to be the credentials of John T. Jones and Augustus H. Garland, chosen Senators by the legislature of the State of Arkansas for the unexpired terms commencing on the 4th day of March, 1865, and on the 4th day of March, 1867.

Mr. Howard submitted a motion that the papers presented by Mr. Davis lie on the table.

Mr. Hendricks asked to have the papers read; and

Objection being made thereto,

The President pro tempore submitted the question to the Senate, to wit: Shall the papers be read? and it was determined in the affirmative-yeas 30, nays 16.

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

Those who voted in the affirmative are Messrs. Bayard, Cole, Conkling, Corbett, Cragin, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Drake, Edmunds, Fessenden, Fowler, Harlan, Henderson, Hendricks, Johnson, McCreery, Morgan, Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Patterson of New Hampshire, Patterson of Tennessee, Ramsey, Ross, Sherman, Sprague, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Willey, and Yates.

Those who voted in the negative are Messrs. Cattell, Chandler, Conness, Ferry, Frelinghuysen, Howard, Howe, Morrill of Maine, Nye, Pomeroy, Stewart, Sumner, Thayer, Tipton, Wade, and Wilson.

So it was decided that the papers be read; and

The Secretary having read the same, the question recurred on the motion of Mr. Howard that the papers presented by Mr. Davis lie on the table; and

On the question to agree thereto, it was determined in the affirmative.

A motion was then submitted by Mr. Davis that the credentials of Benjamin F. Rice and the credentials of Alexander McDonald be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary; and

On the question to agree thereto, it was determined in the negative; and

The oaths prescribed by law were administered to Mr. Rice and Mr. McDonald by the President pro tempore, and they took their seats in the Senate.

[Fortieth Congress-Second session.]

WILLIAM MARVIN vs. THOMAS W. OSBORN,

of Florida.

Florida had been without representation in Congress from 1861. June 30, 1868, the credentials of Mr. Osborn, elected to fill the unexpired term ending March 3, 1873, were presented. They were signed by Harrison Reed, governor, and certified that he had been elected June 18, 1868. A motion was made that the credentials be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. It appears from the debate that by a resolution of the Florida legislature the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments had been "adopted." It was maintained by some that this was not a sufficient" ratification" of the amendments. Pending debate on the motion to refer Mr. Osborn's credentials, the credentials of Mr. Marvin, claiming to have been elected for the same term, were presented. They were signed by David S. Walker as governor, and certified that Mr. Marvin had been elected November 28, 1866. The motion to refer Mr. Osborn's credentials to a committee was determined in the negative, and Mr. Osborn was admitted to the seat. No further action was taken on Mr. Marvin's credentials. It appears from the debate on them that Mr. Marvin had been elected before Congress had declared that Florida was entitled to representation in Congress, it having declared that Florida was not entitled to appoint electors for President and Vice-President.

The history of the case here given consists of a transcript of the proceedings of the Senate relating to it from the Senate Journal, 40th Cong., 2d sess.

The debates are found on pages 3598-3607 of the Congressional Globe, part 4, 2d sess. 40th Cong.

TUESDAY, June 30, 1868.

Mr. Howe presented a resolution of the legislature of the State of Florida ratifying the amendments to the Constitution of the United States known as Articles XIII and XIV; which was read.

Mr. Howe presented the credentials of Thomas Ward Osborn, elected a Senator of the United States by the legislature of the State of Florida for the unexpired term commencing March 4, 1867; which were read.

A motion was made by Mr. Drake that the resolution of ratification of the legislature of Florida and the credentials of Mr. Osborn be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

After debate,

Mr. Doolittle presented a paper purporting to be the credentials of William Marvin, elected a Senator of the United States by the legislature of the State of Florida on the 28th of November, 1866, for the term of six years commencing on the 4th day of March, 1867, and asked that the paper be read.

Objection to the reading of the paper having been made by Mr. Howe,

The President pro tempore submitted the question to the Senate, Shall the paper be read? and it was determined in the affirmative; and

The said paper having been read, the question recurred on the motion of Mr. Drake to refer the resolution of the legislature of Florida and the credentials of Mr. Osborn to the Committee on the Judiciary.

On the question to agree thereto, it was determined in the negative-yeas 16, nays 30. On motion by Mr. Conness, the yeas and nays being desired by one-fifth of the Senators present,

Those who voted in the affirmative are Messrs. Anthony, Buckalew, Davis, Doolittle, Drake, Edmunds, Fessenden, Hendricks, Howard, Johnson, McCreery, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Norton, Patterson of New Hampshire, and Vickers.

Those who voted in the negative are Messrs. Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Cole, Conness, Corbett, Cragin, Ferry, Frelinghuysen, Harlan, Howe, McDonald, Morgan, Morton, Nye, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Ross, Sherman, Stewart, Sumner, Thayer, Tipton, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Wade, Willey, Williams, Wilson, and Yates.

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

Mr. Howe submitted a motion that the oaths prescribed by law be now administered to Mr. Osborn.

A motion was made by Mr. Drake that the credentials of Mr. Osborn lie on the table, and that the resolution of the legislature of Florida ratifying the amendments to the Constitution of the United States be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Conness raised the question of order, to wit, that the motion to administer the oaths of office to Mr. Osborn having been first made, and being in the nature of a privileged question, had precedence over the motion of Mr. Drake.

The President pro tempore sustained the question of order raised by Mr. Conness, and decided the motion of Mr. Drake not in order; and

79908-S. Doc. 1036, 62-3- -24

On the question, Shall the oaths prescribed by law be now administered to Mr. Osborn?

On motion by Mr. Drake that the further consideration of said question be postponed to to-morrow, it was determined in the negative-yeas 13, nays 31.

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

Those who voted in the affirmative are Messrs. Anthony, Buckalew, Corbett, Davis, Doolittle, Drake, Edmunds, Fessenden, Hendricks, McCreery, Morrill of Vermont, Norton, and Vickers.

Those who voted in the negative are Messrs. Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Cole, Conkling, Conness, Cragin, Ferry, Frelinghuysen, Harlan, Howard, Howe, McDonald, Morgan, Morrill of Maine, Morton, Nye, Patterson of New Hampshire, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Ross, Stewart, Sumner, Thayer, Tipton, Trumbull, Wade, Willey, Williams, Wilson, and Yates.

So the motion to postpone the further consideration of the question to administer the oaths to Mr. Osborn was not agreed to; and

On the question, Shall the oaths prescribed by law be now administered to Mr. Osborn? it was determined in the affirmative-yeas 33, nays 6.

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

Those who voted in the affirmative are Messrs. Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Cole, Conkling, Conness, Corbett, Cragin, Drake, Ferry, Frelinghuysen, Harlan, Howard, McDonald, Morgan, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Nye, Patterson of New Hamp shire, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Ross, Stewart, Sumner, Thayer, Tipton, Trumbull, Wade, Willey, Williams, Wilson, and Yates.

Those who voted in the negative are Messrs. Buckalew, Davis, Doolittle, Johnson, McCreery, and Vickers.

So the motion was agreed to; and

The oaths prescribed by law were administered to Mr. Osborn by the President pre tempore, and he took his seat in the Senate.

[Third session, Fortieth Congress, and Forty-first Congress.]

JOSHUA HILL AND H. V. M. MILLER.

WHITELEY AND FARROW vs. HILL AND MILLER,

Of Georgia.

December 7, 1868, the credentials of Joshua Hill, elected for the unexpired portion of the term be ginning March 4, 1867, were presented. December 10, his credentials were referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. January 11, 1869, the credentials of H. V. M. Miller, elected for the unexpired por tion of the term beginning March 4, 1865, were presented and referred to the same committee. January 25, 1869, the committee reported on the credentials of Mr. Hill. The chief question to be decided was whether Georgia had complied with the conditions of an act providing for her admission to representation. This act provided that "no person prohibited from holding office under the United States or any State by section 3 of the proposed amendment to the Constitution of the United States, known as article 14, shall be deemed eligible to any office in said State unless relieved from disability as provided in said amendment." The committee reported that some of the members composing the legislature electing Mr. Hill were disqualified under the above provision; that the legislature had gone through with the forms of an investigation which did "not appear to have been conducted in good faith," and had found none of the members disqualified; that "the election and qualification of members of the legislature, where the existence of any legisla ture authorized to act as such is not involved, cannot be inquired into by the Senate in determining the right of a Senator to his seat;" but that "the question involved in this case is not whether persons not entitled to seats in the legislature were received by that body and allowed to vote upon the election of a Senator, but whether the body assuming to be the legislature violated the conditions upon which it was allowed to organize by permitting disloyal persons to participate in its proceedings." The committee submitted a resolution that Mr. Hill" ought not now to be admitted" to take his seat. There was a minority report. February 17, 1869, the committee reported against admitting Mr. Miller to his seat. There was no written report. In the next session of Congress the credentials of Messrs. Hill and Miller were again referred to the committee, who reported them back, and they were laid on the table. February 14, 1870, in the next session, the credentials were again referred to the committee. A new election having been held, the credentials of Richard H. Whiteley, elected for the unexpired portion of the term beginning March 4, 1865, and the credentials of Henry P. Farrow, elected for the unexpired portion of the term beginning March 4, 1867, were presented July 15, 1870, and ordered to lie on the table. No reports were made during this session on the credentials; but an act was passed (approved December 22, 1869) to promote the reconstruction of Georgia; a report was made March 2, 1870 (No.58), on the question whether the legislature had been reorganized in accordance with the provisions of this act; and an act was passed (approved July 15, 1870) declaring that the State was entitled to representation in Congress. The proceedings of the Senate relating to these acts are not included in the proceedings given below. December 3, 1870, in the next session of Congress, the credentials of Messrs. Whiteley and Farrow were referred to the committee. January 23, 1871, the committee reported on the credentials of the four claimants that Messrs. Hill and Miller, elected under the organization of 1868, were duly elected, but that Mr. Miller, having acted as a surgeon in the rebel army, could not take the oath required by the act of July 2, 1862. They recommended the adoption of the resolution that Mr. Hill was entitled to his seat. There was a minority report recommending the adoption of a resolution declaring Messrs. Whiteley and Farrow (who had been elected under the organization of 1870) entitled to seats. February 1, 1871, the resolution reported by the committee was agreed to and Mr. Hill took his seat in the Senate. February 24, 1871, a joint resolution prescribing an oath to be taken by Mr. Miller was approved, and Mr. Miller took his seat.

The proceedings of the Senate relating to this joint resolution are not included in theextr acts given below.

The history of the case here given consists of a transcript of the proceedings of the Senate relating to the case from Senate Journals, 3d sess. 40th Cong., and 1st, 2d, and 3d sess. 41st Cong., with extracts from the reports. A portion of report No. 58, 2d sess. 41st Cong., referred to above, is included in the report made January 23, 1871, given below.

Special references to the debates of each day are inserted below, and references to the reports are given in fout-notes.

[Third sesson of the Fortieth Congress.]

CREDENTIALS OF MR. HILL.

MONDAY, December 7, 1868.

Mr. Sherman presented the credentials of Joshua Hill, elected a Senator by the general assembly of the State of Georgia for the unexpired portion of the term commencing on the 4th day of March, 1867; which were read.

Mr. Drake moved that the said credentials be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary when said committee shall have been appointed.

Pending debate,

Mr. Wilson presented a memorial of the representatives of the colored voters of the State of Georgia, in convention assembled, in relation to the action of the legislature of that State in expelling twenty-nine colored members from the said legislature; which was read; and,

After further debate,

On motion by Mr. Sherman,

Ordered, That the credentials of Mr. Joshua Hill lie on the table.

[The debate is found on pages 1–5 of Congressional Globe, part 1, 3d sess. 40h Cong.]