Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

not quote me correctly. I said, I am quite certain, that the authorities recognized this as the government of Virginia-as the government, not as the new gov

ernment.

Mr. Hutchins obtained the floor.

Mr. Olin. With the consent of the gentleman from Ohio, I desire to propound a question to the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. Colfax.] The gentleman from Indiana has argued this constitution question with great ability, but I wish to make of him one inquiry. What will become of the bonds and other obligations which she has issued or incurred as a State, by the recognition of the new State of West Virginia?

Mr. Colfax.-I will answer the gentleman from New York with a great deal of pleasure; but he will permit me to answer him somewhat after the Yankee fashion-we are both of sufficiently Yankee origin to warrant it-by asking another question. I ask the gentleman what became of the obligations of the State of Virginia when Kentucky was cut off from that State and admitted into the Union? What became of the obligations of the State of Massachusetts after Maine was cut off and admitted into the Union?

Mr. Olin.-I will answer the gentleman with pleasure, that Vermont, as a State, and Massachusetts, as a State, responded to their obligations; and, in both instances, the division was by the consent of the Legislatures and people of both portions of the territory to be divided.

VI.

REMARKS OF MR. COLFAX ON THE RIGHT OF A MEMBER HOLDING A COMMISSION IN THE ARMY TO RETAIN HIS SEAT IN THE HOUSE.

CASE OF MR. VANDEVER.

(DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JANUARY 21ST, 1863.)

Mr. Colfax.-I will say, for one, that it is immaterial, so far as my vote is concerned, whether this House postpones the resolution until the 3d of March or decides it definitely now. I shall vote, with great pleasure, against the report of the Committee of Elections in this case; and I am glad to find, by the record of our proceedings in the first session of this Con gress, which I hold in my hand, that I am sustained in that vote by a plurality of the Committee of Elections themselves. In the course of the first session of this Congress, in July, 1861, the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Vallandigham,] who is the originator of the action now proposed by the Committee of Elec

tions, offered a resolution, on the 12th day of July, which I will read:

"Whereas it is rumored that Gilman Marston of New Hampshire, James E. Kerrigan of New York, Edward McPherson and Charles J. Biddle of Pennsylvania, and Samuel R. Curtis of Iowa, holding seats in this House as members thereof, have been sworn into the military service of the United States, and hold military offices under the authority of the same; and whereas James H. Campbell of Pennsylvania, also holding a seat in this House as a member thereof, has admitted upon the floor of this House that he has been so sworn and does so hold office as aforesaid: Therefore,

"Resolved, That the Committee of Elections be instructed to inquire, and without unnecessary delay to report, whether the gentlemen above named, or any others claiming or holding seats as members of this House, and at the same time holding any military office under the authority of the United States, are constitutionally disqualified to be members of this House by holding such military offices."

[ocr errors]

This resolution was advocated by the gentleman from Ohio, who presented the resolutions, holding that the members named in the resolution, were not entitled to seats upon the floor. He was answered among others by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. Campbell,) and by the gentleman from Iowa, (Mr. Curtis.) I adopt the language of these gentleman on that occasion as my own in reply to the remarks of the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. Dawes.] Mr. Campbell said:

"I hold a seat on this floor by virtue of the votes of the people of the eleventh congressional district of Pennsylvania, and I hold a commission under the broad seal of the Commonwealth of Pennslyvania, and the signature of her Governor, by which I am at present serving in the Army of the United States. I hold no two offices under the Government of the United States. I have taken an oath of allegiance to the Constitution and the laws, and the gentleman has done the same. This oath is equally binding on us both. But, Sir, there is no possible conflict between these two positions. I hold one as member of this House, by virtue of an election under the laws of the United States; and the other under the seal of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the signature of her Governor."

The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Curtis) also defined his position very clearly, as follows:

"The position which I hold in the military service of the United States is that of a loan from the State of Iowa. The Governor of Iowa was called upon for troops, and I fell into the ranks. I was unanimously elected a colonel. I was commissioned by the Governor of Iowa, and I have tried to serve in that capacity. In my military position I am merely an officer of the State of Iowa, loaned for the time being to the United States loaned for the purpose of sustaining the national flag-loaned to the United States for the purpose of sustaining the absolute supremacy of the laws, which it is the province of the United States to do. I do not, therefore, conceive that as a State of ficer serving for the State of Iowa in that capacity,

I am in any way acting as an officer of the United States. I have no commission under the Government of the United States. I am not an officer of the United States. I am an officer of the State of Iowa.

"Before I take my seat, I desire to inquire of the gentleman from Ohio whether he is not himself an officer in the militia of the State of Ohio?

"Mr. Vallandigham. I do hold a commission under the State of Ohio."

Does not this brief extract answer the whole ment of the gentleman from Massachusetts ?

argu

And, Sir, I may ask whether the principle now sought to be settled is to go still further, and whether, having held the place of private in the volunteer force, being mustered into the service of the United States, and drawing the pay of thirteen dollars a month, would have the effect of depriving a member of his seat upon this floor? Shall officers of the State militia be excluded? for it will be seen that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Vallandigham] conceded in this debate with Mr. Curtis that he held that position.

These officers of the State militia are temporarily in the service of the General Government, to suppress a gigantic insurrection. They hold their commissions, not from the President of the United States, but from the Governors of their States. Therefore they do not come under the same disqualification with those who hold office under the direct authority and commission of the President of the United States. After debate, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Kellogg] moved to

« AnteriorContinuar »