to be continued. Against this bill the cry was raised that such a law would be unconstitutional and would rob the Governor of every vestige of military power; and it was further characterized as a defiance of both the State and National Governments. But the Constitution plainly declares that the militia "shall be organized, officered, armed, equipped and trained in such manner as may be provided by law;" thus placing these matters wholly under legislative control; and while the Governor is made the source of military commissions, he is empowered to appoint only the Adjutant, Commissary and Quartermaster Generals. Without doubt the proposed law would have taken away much of the Governor's power; but it would not have left him in the utterly impotent condition to which President Johnson was reduced in later years by Senator Morton and the Republicans in Congress, when they stripped him of the right to rame his own, Secretary of War, or to issue a military order unless with the consent of a Secretary who was hostile to his person and opposed to his views.

The resolutions offered or adopted, of which this General Assembly was unusually prolific, have been bitterly assailed. It will be remembered that Indiana was the only Northern State that elected a Democratic Legislature while the war was in progress. This Legislature was therefore regarded as the spokesman of the party, and its utterances were received with the disposition now rampant in the country, to make the term Democratic synonymous with disloyal. None but Republicans could. be allowed to be patriotic; no Democrat could be suffered to rise in the army or succeed in civil life.

The legislative resolutions have therefore received scant indulgence. Their criticism of the conduct of the war was counted disloyalty, their suggestion of negotiations for its termination on the basis of the Union was denounced as treason, their praises of the soldiers in the

field were stigmatized as hypocrisy. Yet their position upon the more important subjects touched, with the exception of emancipation, has been justified by subsequent events; and their view of emancipation as a constitutional question has been affirmed by the best legal authorities. The great case, Ex Parte Milligan, has amply vindicated their bitterest invectives against the arbitrary exercise of power in arresting citizens. Of that unwarrantable usurpation, the resolutions said that it was "arbitrary, violent, insulting, and degrading to a degree unknown to any government on earth, except those avowedly and notoriously cruel and despotic." Upon the same question the Supreme Court of the United States has since said, by the mouth of David Davis, in language of judicial calm but of no less positive censure: "A citizen not connected with the military service, and resident in a State where the courts are open and in the proper exercise of their jurisdiction, can not, even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended, be tried, convicted or sentenced, otherwise than by the ordinary courts of law. The Supreme Court hold that the constitutional guaranty of trial by jury was intended as well for a state of war as in time of peace, and that it is equally binding upon the people and the Federal authorities at all times and under all circumstances."

The Appropriation bill was generously framed, making ample provision for the support of the State government and the Benevolent Institutions, and for the soldiers of the State in the service of the Government. It was satisfactory to both parties, but it was never passed. On the 25th of February the Military Board bill was brought to a final vote; when the Republican members of the House left the chamber, thus breaking the quorum. On March 9th, after waiting in vain for their return, the General Assembly adjourned.

The responsibility for the failure of the Appropriation

bill is not with the Democrats. It was known that the bills objected to could not pass the Senate, though passed by the House, since Senator A. C. Downey, of Ohio county, had pledged himself to vote against them, and his vote was necessary to give the Democrats a constitutional majority. It was charged at the time that certain. great corporate interests broke up the General Assembly to prevent other legislation then pending, while the ostensible reason of the bolt was to prevent the passage of the Military Board bill and the Metropolitan Police bill. But meantime the election of United States Senators, though delayed somewhat by the factious conduct of both sides, had been duly held. Indiana at this time was represented in the Federal Senate by Henry S. Lane and Joseph A. Wright. The former was elected in January, 1861, after having occupied the Governor's chair for but two days; the latter was holding by appointment of the Governor. It was, therefore, in order to proceed at once to the election of a Senator for the few remaining weeks of the unexpired term, as well as one for the regular term to begin March 4th. The climax of Governor Wright's disappointments was at hand. One of the most eminent and influential of the Governors of Indiana, he had reached his high position by his own merits and unaided efforts. His long term in the executive chair (1849-1856) connected the eras of the two Constitutions of the State, and shaped much of the legislation under which we still live. A Democrat" from way back" and high in the councils of his party, he had been a member of Congress and a Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States. He had justly aspired to a seat in the Senate as the crown and completion of his public career, but in this he had been thwarted by his very virtues; for it was not through accident that he was hostile to Jesse D. Bright. His strong anti-slavery sentiments naturally arrayed him against that powerful leader, and thus barred his way to the coveted

prize. When at last Governor Morton, who of old as a Democrat had supported Wright in his rivalry with the party dictator, appointed him to the seat of his fallen enemy, they both hoped, perhaps, that enough Democrats would follow the new Senator in his course to secure a Legislature favorable to his election. But the majority was against him; and so greatly had political feeling become intensified that there were few of his old party friends but rejoiced in his discomfiture.

The majority had not far to look for available men of unimpeachable Democracy. Their late candidates for Governor and Lieutenant Governor had received the highest indorsement of the party and had increased their popularity by an able canvass. For this reason as well as for their eminent fitness, they were nominated unanimously by the party caucus the evening of January 8th, and the afternoon of the 14th they were elected in joint convention,—David Turpie for the small remainder of the term of Bright and Wright, and Thomas A. Hendricks to succeed him on the 4th of March, for a full period of six years.

Mr. Turpie went immediately to Washington, where in seven weeks he made perhaps the most brilliant record that was ever made in the United States Senate in so short a time. Of this able statesman, Senator Daniel W. Voorhees recently said to the President, when asked by him who Mr. Turpie of Indiana was, "Mr. Turpie is a gentleman to whom I feel like apologizing whenever I meet him." "Why so?" asked the President. "Because," answered the Senator, with a wit worthy of Sir Charles Sedley, but a generosity of sentiment all his own, "I am in the United States Senate, and he is not."

The career of Mr. Hendricks as a Senator will be reserved for another chapter.

CHAPTER XIV.

UNITED STATES SENATOR.

The six years during which Mr. Hendricks occupied a seat in the Senate were among the most momentous in the history of the nation. Questions relating to the support of vast armies and the conduct of a great war, the restoration of insurrectionary States to their Federal relations, the amendment of the Constitution, and the impeachment of the President of the greatest Republic on earth-some of the most stupendous questions that ever came before a legislative body-were dealt with and settled. It will be impossible to give in a single chapter more than an outline of Mr. Hendricks's career as a Senator, but the attempt will be made to show clearly his position on important measures, using his own words when available for the purpose.

On the call of the roll of Senators (March 6, 1863), to take the oath of office, Messrs. Buckalew, Hendricks, Johnson, and Wright remained in their seats. Since the last ceremony of this kind had taken place, a new and unusual oath had been prescribed by an act of Congress of July 2, 1862, to be taken by all civil officials of the United States, and it was this test oath which the newly elected Senators were called upon to take and subscribe. After those who went forward had been sworn, Reverdy Johnson of Maryland, a man of earnest patriotism, rose and said that while he had no objection to taking the oath prescribed, yet two difficulties occurred to him: according to his interpretation of the Constitution a Senator was ( 257 )

17