THIRTY-EIGHTH CONGRESS, 2D SESSION.

ing our continental policy and the Monroe doctrine from the infringement of foreign Powers, and especially France. It went to the Senate; there, for certain reasons, it sleeps-sleeps the sleep of death, and will know no waking. The country was insulted, the continent was insulted, by this French intervention, and the House of Representatives, in a moment of pride of nationality, of true dignity, asserted its proper prerogative with respect to this question. The Committee on Foreign Affairs but carried out their wishes. How our resolution was treated by the Executive and by the House in their action this day we know. But, sir, I do not think this action of the House a good reason why the gentleman from Maryland should be excused, or that the House should excuse him, unless he holds this House and this Congress in utter and absolute contempt. I hope, Mr. Speaker, there will be something done to vindicate the privileges of at least the lower House of Congress from the executive, and, if you please, diplomatic aggrandizement. We have had in this country within the last two years the same old question which they have had in England for a great many years and centuries-the old contest between the royal prerogative and parliamentary privilege, with this exception, whereas in England Parliament is paramount, in this country we are, or ought to be, limited by a written constitution. In England and in this country that contest has been waged between executive usurpation and congressional privilege; and the gentleman from Maryland, not only in this matter but in other matters, has asserted the congressional right against executive usurpation, and he deserves the thanks of every national man of every party for it.

It is time, sir, that the rights and privileges of the national Legislature were respected, and I would appeal to the self-respect of members upon both sides to vindicate their own dignity and the dignity of the Constitution. There is no question in my mind but that Congress has, if not a con* trolling, a large voice in diplomatic and foreign relations. But it seems, by the vote just taken on laying this resolution on the table, that the House thinks otherwise. If it chooses to think so, very well, but do not let the gentleman from Maryland, after such action, take umbrage at anything this House may do. He can vindicate his own self-respect and dignity, as he has done before, when our rights were intrenched upon by the Executive in his famous manifesto, which he is bold enough at all times to vindicate before the people.

Mr. Speaker, there are a good many questions pertaining to congressional privileges which will arise before this session is over. They will require us to vindicate our rights here against the Executive. It was only yesterday that the House adopted the resolution of the honorable gentleman from New York, [Mr. BROoxs,] committing to the Committee on Foreign Affairs an inquiry as to what is necessary to be done to protect our northern boundary from the arson, robbery, and raids of the sneaking scoundrels upon our borders. Why was that resolution sent to us? Why should Congress take any action on the subject if we are to have no voice and no control in these foreign matters? Suppose we should make a report sustaining the action of General Dix, and the true interpretation of international law-is such a report to be null and void because this House has no control over the subject referred? Suppose we demand that Federal force should follow these rascally raiders across the border into the conterminous jurisdiction of England, where they have been sheltered-are we to be told we have no business to meddle with it, as it is "purely an executive question?" The true doctrine, as it is laid down by Vattel, Phillimore, Wheaton, and by all international writers, and assented to by Webster in the Caroline case, would give this Government the right, for scif-protection, of pur suit across the border, in precisely a case of this kind, where, in civil war, rebels are harbored on one side and make incursions upon the other; and if we report such a resolution asserting this right, are we then to be told it is not within the

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 20, 1864.

purview of our powers? Yet this matter has been referred to us, and if we make a report upon it, is that report to have any emphasis? Has Congress any right or control over the matter? If not, why did the House refer this matter to the Committee on Foreign Affairs? Why pass on such matters at all, and then table a resolution which only vindicates our rights and privileges? I have no doubt that the House would willingly excuse me from serving on that committee. If they excuse the gentleman from Maryland, of course they will excuse the lesser and insignificant member of the committee; but I hope that they will not pass a vote of censure upon the committee by excusing him. If they do, this House sinks to the lowest level of any national Legislature that ever assembled here or in any other country. They deserve only to be on their knees perpetually in the dust at the footstool of power, and to be kicked and thrust aside by the Executive whenever he chooses to exercise any of its functions, diplomatic or otherwise. Let us vindicate our own rights. If we have the right to pass upon these matters let us exercise that right. If we have not, let us stop this mockery of sending to the Committee on Foreign Affairs these and kindred resolutions pertaining to Canada such as you sent to us yesterday. I shall, therefore, in courtesy to the honorable chairman of the committee to which I belong, vote against excusing him. I can testify to his ability, to his earnestto his energy, and to his outspoken integrity, and, so far as these foreign questions are concerned, to his nationality; and, Mr. Speaker, we need such a man, and may need him more hereafter upon that committee.

ness,

Mr. BLAINE. A single word, Mr. Speaker, on the other side. Parallels in history are always interesting, and often instructive. A recent correspondence on a threatened difficulty with France has brought this question before the House. Three quarters of a century ago we had troubles with the same nation, and those troubles were attended with an incident which, if not precisely parallel, at least involves the same general principle now under discussion. It is an incident connected with a name whose mention commands respect everywhere, and which I have peculiar confidence in presenting to the attention of gentlemen on the other side of the Chamber. The very same objections and the very same appeals to the power of Congress were made in the French difficulties during the Administration of Washington, in the discussion between the French minister, Citizen Genet, and the American Secretary of State, Mr. Jefferson; and it is to Mr. Jefferson's declarations that I especially invite attention. I beg the privilege of reading from Randolph's Life of Jefferson, volume two, pages 158 and 159, as follows:

"Genet took up the subject instantly in a very high tone,' and for a tinie proceeded with such volubility that Jefferson found all efforts to take some part in the conversation were quite ineffectual.' The latter thus subsequently reported the substance of the conversation to the President:

"He charged us with having violated the treaties between the two nations, and so went into the cases which had before been subjects of discussion; complained that we suffered our flag to be insulted and disregarded by the English; that they stopped all our vessels, and took out of them whatever they suspected to be French property; that they had taken all the provisions he had embarked in American Vessels for the colonies; that if we were not able to proteet their vessels in our ports, nor their property on the high seas, we ought to permit them to protect it themselves; and they, on the contrary, paid the highest respect to our flag; that, though it was notorious that most of the cargoes sent from America were British property, yet, being in American vessels, or pretended American vessels, they never touched it, and thus had no chance of retaliating on their enemies; that he had been thwarted and opposed in everything he had to do with the Government; that he found himself in so disagreeable a situation that he sometimes thought of packing up and going away, as he found that he could not be useful to his nation in anything.'

"After expatiating on the friendly propositions he had brought from his nation, and affirming that such a return to them ought not to have been made by the Executive without consulting Congress, he declared that on the President's return he would certainly press him to convene Congress. Having got into a more moderate tone, Jefferson now stopped him at the mention of Congress, explained to him the functions of the several departments of the Govern ment, and that all the questions which had arisen between

NEW SERIES.....No. 4.

him and it belonged to the executive department, and if Congress had been sitting could not have been carried to them, nor would they have taken notice of them. Jefferson's further report of the conversation solicits a smile: "He [Genet] asked if they [Congress] were not the soyereign. I told him no; they were sovereign in making laws only; the Executive was sovereign in executing them; and the judiciary in construing them where they related to their department. "But," said he, "at least Congress are bound to see that the treaties are observed." I told him no; there were very few cases indeed, arising out of treaties, which they could take notice of; that the President is to see that treaties are observed. If he decides against the treaty, to whom is a nation to appeal?" I told him the Constitution had made the President the last appeal. He made me a bow, and said that indeed he would not make me his compliments on such a Constitution, expressed the utmost astonishment at it, and seemed never before to have had such an idea." "

Well, Mr. Speaker, we have got the same Constitution to-day that excited the smiles of Citizen Genet in 1793. I can conceive of nothing more mischievous, more entirely mischievous, in the working of this Government than for Congress to plant itself on this resolution, and for this simple reason: in effect, it absolutely denies to the Executive a concurrent power in the foreign affairs of the Government. It ties up the Foreign Department of the Government just whenever any member chooses to bring a question before Congress, and so long as that question is pending in either House of Congress the Executive Department is stopped by the very terms of the resolution from making it even a subject of diplomatic correspondence. The resolution, indeed, specifically declares that "such proposition," (that is, whatever may be introduced in either branch of Congress,) "while pending and undetermined, is not a fit topic of diplomatic explanation with any foreign Power." To adopt this principle is to start out with a new theory in the administration of our foreign affairs, and I think the House has justified its sense of self-respect and its just appreciation of the spheres of the coördinate departments of Government by promptly laying the resolution on the table.

I think our foreign correspondence has been conducted wisely and well by the very distinguished statesman at the head of the Department of State. His highest eulogy is to be found in the eminent success that has attended his labors in a time of peculiar and unparalleled trial and trouble. It is wise to "let well enough alone," and for one, I can never consent to a resolution passing this House that contains even an implied censure upon one to whom the country owes so much.

In regard to the resignation of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Davis] from the chairmanship of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, my own feeling is but that of the entire House, when I express myself warmly against it. A gentleman of his ability cannot be spared from his responsible position, and I feel sure the House will insist on his continued service.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. Speaker, I am so obtuse that I cannot see the least analogy between the case cited by the gentleman from Maine [Mr. BLAINE] and the case now under consideration. The one was the interference of a foreigner, a proposal by him to ask Congress to interfere with treaty stipulations. Mr. Jefferson very properly told him that Congress had no right to interfere with treaty stipulations; for, as we all know, treaties are, by the Constitution, the supreme law of the land. That is the whole extent of the precedent to which the gentleman has referred; and how it has any bearing on this question I am unable to perceive.

Suppose Congress were to pass a law that no foreign Power should be permitted to establish a monarchy on the continent of North Americahas not Congress the power to do it? Is that interfering with the executive or any other department of the Government? Is it not legitimately within the power of Congress to say that we will or we will not suffer thrones to be erected within our dominions or adjacent to them? If we can enforce it, well. I am not speaking of its policy. I am speaking of the powers of Congress. If such a declaration lead to war, then in

Congress, and in Congress alone, lies the power to declare war. The President cannot do it. How, then, does it interfere with the executive prerogative for Congress to declare, by a joint resolution-which is a law of the land-a certain line of policy for the Government to pursue in this matter?

when my friend here [Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois] introduced his proposition to tax the stock of whisky on hand, and rode triumphantly through this House upon the bead of the liquor, while I was completely submerged, I did not ask to be excused; it was a gentle ducking from which I expected to recover, hoping to come out renovated by the bath. [Laughter.] And I hope the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Davis] will receive this in the same way, and consider that he can still serve the country with advantage in the position he now occupies, for I am sure that no man in this House or in the nation can be more properly put at the head of that committee.

Mr. BOUTWELL. Mr. Speaker, it was my misfortune to vote with the majority of this House upon the question of laying upon the table the resolution submitted by the chairman of the Com

Sir, the question is as clear as the sun at noonday, unless we are willing to stultify ourselves. Why was not this thought of at the last session of Congress, when the gentleman [Mr. BLAINE] and other gentlemen were present and suffered that resolution to pass unanimously? Why is it that they have just now waked up to a sense of their error, unless it is because, not the President -and that is wherein I somewhat censure this resolution-but one branch of the Executive Government took upon it to rebuke this body, and to inform foreign nations that we were an imperti-mittee on Foreign Affairs. It may not, therefore, nent set of intermeddlers, and that the Executive of the nation would pay no respect to the action of this body, or, if you please, to the action of Congress, if the joint resolution had passed the Senate? I have no censure for anybody. We unanimously declared that a certain policy should be the policy of this nation, and we proposed to make it the law of the land. Foreign nations took some offense at it, as everybody knows that it was not in favor of foreign nations who have come on this continent against the traditional policy of the nation from the time of Monroe to the present time, and who are establishing thrones to surround this Republic in order that they may eventually establish them here. Does it not become this body and this Congress to say to them, Procul, Oprocul este, profani? "Keep out of the way, ye monarchical heretics, and do not attempt to interfere with the grand policy of the republicans of this country."

And are we to be intimidated because a foreign monarch chooses to find fault, and shall an agent of this Government humble the nation before him, and say that the action of this body means nothing; that the Representatives of the people recently chosen from all the districts of the nation are nothing; that their sense of policy means nothing; and that he need not trouble himself any further about it, but that the Secretary of State will take care that these impertinent boys shall do no harm? For that is precisely what he said; not perhaps in exactly that language, for I do not reinember the language exactly.

Now, sir, the President does not interfere with the Foreign Minister in his policy. He is allowed to carry it on himself, and to be responsible for it. And it is only bringing him up to his responsibility that the Committee on Foreign Affairs, very much to their credit, brought in their resolution to vindicate the dignity of this House and the dignity of this country, and to raise it from the low depth of degradation in which it had been placed by its Foreign Minister.

Now, I should have liked to have the resolution read a little differently; for it reads, " and it is the duty of the President to respect that policy." I think that is an unfortunate expression. The President probably had nothing to do with the matter. And when I have the opportunity I will test the sense of the House upon a little alteration of the phraseology of the same resolution, so that it shall read, and it is the duty of the Executive Departments to respect that policy." Therefore, when I get the opportunity, I will again ask the sense of the House upon that ques

tion.

66

If we are mere nobodies in this matter, if we are mere mischief-makers, then let our lord and master in the chair of State rule and control us, and let us ask the pardon of the world for endeavoring to interfere somewhat in one of the most vital questions which can ever affect this nation. I do not think I shall vote to excuse the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. DAVIS] as chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. I do not look upon the vote of this House as any insult to that gentleman; I do not look upon that vote as any censure upon him. We have thoughtlessly acted upon the matter, perhaps, without having taken full opportunity for its consideration; and if the chairman of a committee is to consider himself personally offended when the House votes down propositions which he brings forward for our consideration, some of us would have been out of employment some time ago. [Laughter.] Why, sir,

be inappropriate for me to state at least the impressions rather than opinions by which I was controlled. In the first place, I may say with reference to the important question before the House, that I cannot for one consent to the inference that the vote given by the majority was in any sense a reflection upon the honorable chairman of that committee. In this particular case the judgment of the House differs from the wishes of that gentleman. It is but a repetition of what has so often occurred in our experience, and I should be extremely sorry if the precedent should now be set that whenever a measure proposed by a committee of this House does not meet the approval of a majority of the members of this House, the chairman of that committee is to assume that it is a personal reflection upon him.

I know very well in this case that there is no gentleman upon this floor who enjoys to a greater, if to an equal, extent the respect and confidence of the members upon this side of the House, and, so far as I know, the respect and confidence of members on the other side. I trust, therefore, that the request made by the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs [Mr. DAVIS] will not be granted.

Further, it seems to me that there is a slight misapprehension as to the force and nature of the fact involved in this subject. It is very well known that this House passed a resolution which was, in a certain sense, a redeclaration of the Monroe doctrine. That declaration was not sustained by the other branch of the national Legislature. Therefore the resolution could not be taken as in any sense the expression of the will of Congress; it was merely the expression of the will of the

House.

Now, the resolution which the House has laid upon the table this morning is peculiar in its language upon that point. It is that "Congress," not this House, but that "Congress has a constitutional right and an authoritative voice in declaring and prescribing the foreign policy of the United States, as well in the recognizing of new Powers" as in other matters. If the resolution had stopped there I presume there would have been no gentleman upon this floor disposed to question the propriety of the resolution, supposing that there were facts existing, or supposed to exist, upon which the resolution could be properly

based.

But it proceeds further, and declares that "it is the constitutional duty of the President to respect that policy, not less in diplomatic negotiations than in the use of the national force when authorized by law." This part of the resolution conveyed, by implication at least, the impression that the President has neglected to obey Congress in the exercise of the constitutional right of Congress to declare and prescribe, with an authoritative voice, the policy of the Government in reference to foreign affairs; while, in truth, the complaint made of the President, or of his Secretary of State, is that he neglected to obey the voice of this House when it undertook, by resolution, to set forth what the foreign policy of the country should be upon a particular matter, the judgment of this House having never been concurred in by the other branch of Congress. Therefore the President, so far as I know, at least upon the facts stated thus far in this discussion, is not subject to the imputation, even by implication, that he has neglected to obey the constitutionally expressed judgment of Congress in reference to the foreign policy of this country, but that merely

he has neglected to obey the expressed judgment of this House, that judgment not having been concurred in by the other branch of Congress.

I admit that the manner in which the Secretary of State expressed his opinion as to the rights of this House in respect to foreign affairs was not agreeable to me; I should be glad, in some proper way, to protest against it; but I do not see how we are justified, even upon the language which he saw fit to employ, in arraigning the President for the neglect of the constitutional duty enjoined upon him to obey the will of Congress in reference to our foreign policy. He has neglected, as well as his Secretary, to be guided by the will of this House; but so far as I know, upon the facts stated in this debate, he has not disregarded the constitutionally expressed judgment of Congress in reference to our foreign policy.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. Mr. Speaker, as I moved the tabling of the resolution reported by the gentleman from Maryland, [Mr. DAVIS,] 1 wish simply to say that I made that motion from no disrespect to that gentleman-none whatever. I did not intend that the motion should be regarded at all as an attack upon either the gentleman from Maryland or the committee. There is no member of this House whose ability and fidelity command from me higher respect and admiration than I entertain for the gentleman from Maryland. As has been said here, if, when the House differs in judgment with a committee that reports a bill or a resolution, that fact is to be regarded as an indignity, on account of which members of the committee are to resign, there would be few committees left in this House. I do not think that, because the House differs in opinion with a gentleman as to the propriety of passing an abstract proposition such as was contained in this resolution, that fact should be regarded as an attack upon the judgment or the character or fidelity of the member.

I rose simply to say this in justice to myself as well as to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. COX. I desire to ask the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. FARNSWORTH] whether he will not make the motion to reconsider the vote on the resolution.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. I made the motion to reconsider, and to lay the motion to reconsider on the table.

Mr. COX. Will not the gentleman move to reconsider that?

Mr. FARNSWORTH. I am not willing to do so.

The SPEAKER. Such a motion would be impossible under the rules.

Mr. SPALDING. I wish barely to say, Mr. Speaker, that I have the utmost confidence in the Committee on Foreign Affairs-the chairman and all the members of that committee; and I joined most heartily in the action of this House upon the resolution which emanated from that committee at the last session of Congress, carrying out what we supposed to have been the policy of our Government for a long series of years, and protesting against any foreign interference upon this continent in the establishment of monarchical Governments. I wish to stand, and I wish to live and die, by that doctrine. I should vote for that resolution again to-day, if it were brought before this House, notwithstanding what has occurred in the diplomacy of the country. I do think, also, that the action, perhaps, of one member of the Cabinet was uncalled for, when he reflected in a measure upon the action of this House of Congress. I believe that it was perfectly legitimate for us to express our views in regard to the interposition of France, irrespective of any action on the part of the coördinate branch, the Senate.

Now, sir, when this proposition came up this morning from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, I was inclined to vote for its adoption. I voted against laying the proposition on the table. But upon further reflection, and upon an examination of the resolution, I was fearful that its phraseology conveyed a direct attack upon the Chief Executive of our nation; and, sir, I do not wish to lend my aid at this time to any such legislation as that. I verily believe that we have an Executive who is doing his utmost in a patriotic spirit to preserve unimpaired all the institutions of our country. I cannot, in view of the conduct of that man, consent to any vote upon the floor of this House that shall impugn his integrity in any respect whatso

ever. If the phraseology of the resolution had been modified in some sort as suggested by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. STEVENS,] I should most cheerfully have voted for it; but I could not vote for it impugning the conduct of the President or any member of his Cabinet. That was the reason for my asking to change my vote and voting that the resolution should be laid on the table.

from Massachusetts, and finding his constituents against him, suddenly to resign.

But, sir, that is not pertinent to the matter before us. Whether I remain here any longer or not is not the question. I have been here about as long as my friend from Massachusetts thus far. New England controls this Government now, and he may be here for eight years longer. I remember that when he first came to Congress with

Mr. ROSS. I wish leave to record my vote on the motion that the resolution be laid on the table.

Mr. DAWES. Iobject. Mr. Speaker, I deem it incumbent now to object to a practice which has grown up of recording votes after the announcement of the decision of the House by the Chair, and especially the habit of recording votes on the next day. It has grown to such an extent as to seem to me to be full of mischief. I do not intend any personal application of the present suggestion; and I hope members will not consider it as any matter of ill nature on my part if I am constrained to object hereafter to the practice.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. If the gentleman from Massachusetts will permit me, I will suggest that he offer a resolution on this subject, and let it go to the committee on the rules in order that we may establish a rule in that regard, in reference to changing votes, and also in reference to permitting members to vote who were not within the bar when their names were called. I think we will all agree that it is necessary, and will be beneficial, to have some rule on the subject.

Mr. DAWES. On that point I am satisfied with the rules as they were administered up to the present Congress. Till then they were not productive of any mischief. I think that a proper regard for the rules as they stand will be better than any effort of ours to change them. have made one or two ineffectual efforts on that subject already. I think that we had better conform to the rules that we have.

We

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. If the gentleman from Massachusetts will object at all times to members voting the day afterwards, and when they were not within the bar when their names were called, I shall be very much obliged to him.

Mr. DAWES. That was the purport of what I said I proposed to do, although I am much indisposed to place myself in that position. I only wish to call the attention of the House to it at this present moment. Pending the vote on laying the resolution of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. DAVIS] on the table, although members on both sides of the House were permitted to record their votes in contravention of the rules of the House, yet, when it appeared there was going to be a close vote, objection was made to members recording

their vote.

House to the necessity of excusing him also. I changed my mind upon that, because I had not the heart to excuse both those gentlemen for the little time remaining of their services in the House. I thought it better that we should try to bear yet a little longer with their presence here, and not to part company with them before it had been so ordered by the people of their districts.

And I recollected, and my friend from Maryland will bear with me while I submit that I recollected, that the gentleman from Maryland never differed from committees in their reports; that the gentleman from Maryland always agreed with committees in their reports, and felt bound to respect them; and never, except when called upon by a high sense of duty, when the committee was present, or in their absence, denounced either the chairman or any member of a committee. And I recollected too, that he never went even so far as to announce to the House, in the absence of the chairman of a committee, that the committee themselves had so far violated and shocked the sense, not only of the House but of their constituents, that he was kind enough to commend-so I read in the Globe-the chairman and the committee to look to their positions at home rather than attend to their duties here.

How can I, with all these experiences and recollections, if the gentleman will bear with a member new in experiences of this kind, vote to excuse him merely because the House happened to differ with him upon the propriety of adopting this resolution? Why did not the gentleman, with such a record for the information of the House, recollect that when he on a former occasion asked leave of the House to report a resolution, the House suggested that he had better not report it; and that is the recorded judgment of the House to-day.

The gentleman has thrown himself upon the thick bosses of the buckler of the House this morning, and has got jilted. But I cannot see why he should not be permitted to occupy that place still longer, and therefore I shall vote against excusing him.

Mr. DAVIS, of Maryland, obtained the floor. Mr. COX. Will the gentleman allow me one word, as he will have the privilege of closing the debate?

Mr. DAVIS, of Maryland. I yield.

Mr. COX. I would not have troubled the House again but for the allusions of my friend from Massachusetts. Nature has so constituted him that he has been the first of all the members in this House to display his magnanimity by re

portion of Congress. The gentleman might have had an opportunity to display his vindictive feeling upon that subject, and perhaps have done it a little more in order, on a question a little more connected with parliamentary decorum.

Mr. DAWES. I did not propose to participate in the debate as to whether we shall excuse the gentleman from Maryland from serving on that committee; but now that I am up perhaps I should say a few words.

The SPEAKER. The Chair will not restrict gentlemen unless objection be made.

Mr. DAWES. I was disposed at first, when the gentleman from Maryland asked to be excused from serving further upon the Committee on For

But it is true, as the gentleman intimates, that the places which now know many of us will soon know us no more forever; and we bow to it, if not with political yet with Christian resignation. We do not see anything in the Constitution by which we are bound to quit at the end of one year, after being elected for two. On the contrary we seemed to be compelled by the choice of our constituents, constitutionally made, to serve out the full term. It would be a little inconvenient in a pecuniary sense for a member, after serving here one year, to go home to his constituents, and by some strange freak of fancy on their part, by some popular fallacy, by some ingenious sophistry sent there, perhaps, by the gentleman

mittee. I was chairman of that committee, and the gentleman was then my subordinate. [Laughter.] He ought to recall those past associations, and not be so severe upon his former superior. [Laughter.]

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts has done what no other gentleman on that side of the House, I venture to say, would have done, and that was to remind us here that we are beaten, to trample upon us again after we are deceased. [Laughter.] That is not brave. You will find only one illustration of it in all history and literature, and that was old Sir John Falstaff who killed Hotspur after he was dead. [Laughter.]

But the point in the debate to which I wish to reply was something more pertinent than this. I do not mean by that to say that the remarks of my friend from Massachusetts were impertinent in any bad sense, though they might be considered to be so by persons who do not understand our amicable relations. [Laughter.]

The other gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. BOUTWELL] who discussed this matter, cannot have carefully or critically examined this record. In my judgment, the President, when he called in question, not the action of Congress, but the power of Congress, raised an issue with this Congress. What the Secretary of State did the President did; and my colleague from Ohio [Mr. SPALDING] ought not to shield his vote behind so flimsy a cloak as that the President is not responsible for the Secretary of State, who acts for the President only as the chief clerk of the Executive Department. The gentleman from Massachusetts could not have remembered the language of the chief clerk of the Executive when he said that this question of recognizing a monarchical Government, imposed on a neighboring republic, is a "purely executive question, and the decision of it constitutionally belongs, not to the House of Representatives, nor even to Congress, but to the President of the United States;" thus claiming exclusive power and jurisdiction over these questions, ignoring utterly the right of Congress to pass on them, notwithstanding all the precedents of our history from the beginning of this Government down to the presest time. He ought especially to have remembered those capital precedents made by Monroe, and Madison, and Clay, and John Quincy Adams, with respect to the Spanish American States, when Congress inaugurated the system of recognizing other republics and passing upon these matters of foreign relations. In spite of all these precedents, the Chief Executive lays down the rule that Congress has no power over this subject, but that it is purely an executive question. It is not a question whether the Senate has passed this measure of ours, or not, though I believe the Senate has not acted on it at all; it is not a question whether the resolution has become a law or not; it is a question between the Executive and Congress as to the power of Congress over this and other matters of a foreign nature.

If the gentleman will only read the learned report of the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, he will find that from February 9, 1821, when Henry Clay made a motion in the House of Representatives with reference to recognizing the Governments of Spanish America, running all the way through our history down to the bill for which the gentleman from Massachusetts voted himself, to recognize the black republics of Hayti and Liberia, Congress has always expressed itself, by bills, resolutions, and appropriations, upon these questions of international concernment. And yet my colleague from Ohio says that he would vote again for the resolution of last session as to Mexico and Maximilian, and in the same breath says that he would vote, and did vote, to table this resolution which declares" that Congress has a constitutional right to an authori tative voice in declaring and prescribing the foreign policy of the United States, as well in the

recognition of new Powers as in other matters. How can my colleague be consistent? He says that he would vote for resolutions connected with foreign affairs, and yet he votes to discard a resolution which declares our power to interfere in such affairs! I leave it to the logic of my colleague to get out of this dilemma in which he places himself.

This resolution reported by our committee is not obnoxious on any ground except this, that it would seem in some way or other to strike at one of the Cabinet officers of the Administration. This is the only ground, I venture to say, upon which gentlemen can defend their votes, and one of the members upon the other side put that ground.

upon

Congress. Let him wear his plume, but let him wear it gracefully. have nothing to remark in regard to that gentleman's antecedents. I may, at some other time, have occasion to do that as fearlessly as I speak in favor of another member of the same party-the same who now asks to be excused from service on the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the House will, by its action on this question, sustain its own nity; and with that I shall be content.

Mr. DAVIS, of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I regret that, in the discussion which has taken place, several topics have been introduced that were not very intimately connected with the simple and earnest application made to the House to relieve ine from further service on the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

It was made in all earnestness and simplicity,

What has become of our independence as a body? What has become of that old parliamentary dignity and fearlessness in criticism which belonged in the past to bodies of this nature, bod-from a profound sense of duty, and not from any ies for deliberation and debate? Are we to bow to the Executive in every behest which he may

make?

The discarded resolution goes on to say "that it is the constitutional duty of the President to respect that policy." The "duty of the President;" || that includes all his clerks, his chief clerk and all his Cabinet officers, so called.

Gentlemen say that they would have voted for this resolution if it were modified so as to read "the Executive Department." The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. STEVENS] said that. But the word "Executive," or "President," includes all these officers; and there was no reason for tabling the resolution except this, that it strikes at the policy of the Secretary of State, or the President for whom he speaks. And what is that policy? A policy which humiliates this country in the eyes of the world; a policy which placed us before France on our knees, with our mouths in the dust; which told the Emperor of France that we, the Congress of the United States, had no voice in this matter, but that this Government would humiliate itself in the dust before a foreign Power, and allow that Power to overturn all the cherished traditions of our nation, and to place and to perpetuate a throne upon this continent. Not such, sir, was the old policy of the better days of this Republic, when another policy and another party ruled in this country.

I was opposed to the excusing of my colleague on the Committee on Foreign Affairs, because we need in this House fair, bold, open discussion from men like himself who dares to have his own opinion, even though his opinion may not coincide with that of the men in power. Let not this House, by its vote, cringe before the executive power. Let it stand up in its own self-defense and for its own privileges, for its own self-respect and its own dignity. Let it emulate something of the dignity and self-respect of the old parliamentarians of the better days of England, when men dared to go to the Tower, when men were drawn and quartered because they criticised the royal prerogatives which were unconstitutionally exercised. I hope my friend from Maryland will never have to go to any Bastile, and will never have to be drawn and quartered for any opinions that he may hold. But I do believe that he is of that fearless mold, having run counter to the sentiment of his own State, having belonged to organizations that had a good deal of physical and mental pluck about them, that he dare tell the truth even to the men in power. He did it last summer. And although I did not approve of his position then, nor of the position of the Executive, which sought to overthrow the privileges and powers of the House; although I did not believe that Congress had any power to reconstruct States any more than the Executive had, yet I did applaud his bold courage in speaking out for the rights of Congress in that regard, as I do to-day applaud his fearless criticism in that report of the conduct of the Secretary of State.

What the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. DAWES] said with regard to myself personally, and of the great difference between the member from Maryland and myself, no one appreciates more than I do; and I throw myself in an attitude of perfect humiliation before such a demi-god as the gentleman from Massachusetts. [Laughter. He has the advantage, which I have not, of being a member of the next House of Representatives. He is plumed for a fight in the next

personal feeling of discontent with the vote of the House. I was not in the least degree ruffled in my temper by the circumstance that the House has now, as it has done on so many occasions, differed from me in judgment. I have been brought up on defeats. I have lived in minorities. I always submit, and I trust with perfect humility, to the better judgment of the House. If any gentleman, in the course of my eight years' service in this House, has ever seen in my conduct any manifestation of personal spleen or personal disappointment, then may the observations of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. DAWES] be justified. If no man has on any occasion seen that, then I shall be pardoned for taking no further notice of the mean malice that prompted them.

If it be another question whether the United States would think proper to express themselves at this time and in the form that the House of Representatives have seen fit to use, who speaks for the United States?

The Secretary says:

"This is a practical and purely executive question”— There the Executive speaks for the United States!

and the decision of it constitutionally belongs, not to the House of Representatives, nor even to Congress, but to the President of the United States."

Then the President is the United States! Do gentlemen now understand how the word "President" came there? It was because the Secretary of State had told the French Government, with a view to break the force of the vote of the House of Representatives that it belonged, not to the House of Representatives, nor to Congress, but exclusively to the President of the United States, to declare what the United States thought, and when it was expedient to declare what it thought in ref

I beg the attention of the House to the language of the resolution. The rights that it asserts i do not now pretend to debate. The judgment of the House has been rendered, to which I shall bow, and bow without an argument.

The resolution was not a cobweb of my brain, brought here to hang fine dissertations upon about the abstract rights of different departments of the Government. This House had asserted its authority in matters of the gravest national importance, events which had arrested the attention of the civilized world, and made anxious the heart of every friend of liberty in it. A free nation on our borders lay bleeding in the talons of the French eagle, and a vagrant adventurer who had never seen the soil of Mexico called himself her emperor. The American House of Representatives had declared that it did not accord with our policy to recognize any monarchical Government erected on the ruins of any republican Government in America, least of all in Mexico, our neighbor and our friend. It did not relate to remote or possible contingencies, but to a bloody, awful reality, the ruin of a free nation by European violence, under false pretexts, and with an insolent hostility to our power; a ruin now more nearly consummated, and by our fault, ay, and still more by the fault of those charged with the conduct of our diplomatic intercourse. But that resolution had rested in the Senate. We had done all that we could, and we were obliged to rest in silence.

But when the Secretary of State of the United States sent abroad a dispatch to a foreign Government, relative to a matter then pending within the legislative department of the United States, where the Executive eye has no right to penetrate; respecting the vote on which, until communicated to him in the regular form, he has no right to know anything; when at that stage the Secretary of State saw fit to enter into diplomatic communication with a foreign Government, in order to rob the vote of this House of its legitimate moral power before it had acquired any legislative authority, and in doing that not only questioned the wisdom and

mean war, and peace, and alliances, and recognitions, and neutrality, and every interest and every right by which we touch the nations of the world, and that in the face of the formal words of the Constitution, ascribing those functions in whole or in part to one or both Houses of Congress.

It was that declaration, in conflict with all the precedents of the United States, that the Secretary of State saw fit not merely to express here in the ordinary intercourse between the departments of the Government, but to send abroad to our minister in France, and lay before a foreign Government, and to impeach and discredit the judgment of Congress before it was pronounced, which imperatively required to be rebuked. And it was at that language that the resolution was pointed. Now, judge ye, whether it be true or not, that Congress has a constitutional right to an authoritative voice in our foreign affairs. That raises the issue directly, does it not, with the language, not with the person even of the Secretary of State, whether" Congress has a constitutional right to an authoritative voice in declaring and prescribing the foreign policy of the United States, as well in the recognition of new Powers as in other matters, and it is the constitutional duty of the President to respect that policy, not less in matters of negotiation than in the use of the national force when authorized."

It was no blow aimed at the President. But a right had been asserted for the President by the Secretary of State. He first impeached the right of Congress to do what it has always done, and usurped its right for one of the flowers of the presidential prerogative. I deny his law and his fact. I make the question of right and not of person, either with the Secretary of State or with the President.

And then," whether the United States would think it necessary or proper to express themselves in the form adopted by the House of Representatives," the Secretary tells the world is an executive question! We cannot allow our votes to be received other than in the constitutional form of a veto by the President; then he has the right to approve or refuse to approve them in the forms of his constitutional authority.

But I have yet to learn that it is the right of the President to say what is necessary and proper, or what is wise or what is unwise with reference to

any vote of this House or of both Houses of Congress, except when our votes are communicated for his approval or disapproval; therefore, to make the issue direct with the other portion of the Secretary's letter, this clause is introduced:

“And the propriety of any declaration of foreign policy by Congress is sufficiently proved by the vote which pronounces it."

That is the assertion, that our vote is not the subject of executive criticism; that it is the right of the people of the United States to say what they will upon their foreign policy, and it is the duty of the President to veto or obey it. But, sir, if Congress have sunk so low that it must look beyond the limits of its own Halls to vindicate the necessity and propriety of this solemn declaration of national policy at this time in the form we adopted, perhaps we can find no arbiter between us and the Executive Government which it will recognize so readily as the Baltimore convention; and that enlightened body, forced by public opinion, thought it necessary and proper to echo the resolution for which the Secretary apologized-only in attempting to give a rebuke the form of a compliment, they converted it into

a sarcasm.

That is the substance of the resolution. Now, sir, I say again that I do not mean to debate the policy of the resolution or any matter connected with it. Nobody except the gentleman from Maine [Mr. BLAINE] has impeached it here upon historical grounds. With great respect to that gentleman, I say that the precedent which he quotes is frivolously irrelevant, and that, from the beginning of the Government until this day, there is no vote of either House of Congress, there is no claim by any President of the United States, there is no assertion by any Secretary of State, there is no expression by any respectable public man of any party, that it does not belong to the Congress of the United States to declare and prescribe the foreign policy of the United States; and from the time of the Panama mission, when John Quincy Adams asked and obtained the authority and support of Congress for that great mission which we must soon repeat, until this day, we have vote on vote of Congress, under almost every Administration, affirming, implying, asserting, or exerting that prerogative without question from any quarter; and under this Administration more than one act approved by President Lincoln himself add to the unbroken law of precedents. The recognition of Hayti and Liberia was not the spontaneous act of the President, but he, like his predecessors, waited till Congress had authorized him to open with them international relations.

Sir, there is but one judgment and one course of precedent from the beginning to the end of American history. Monroe concurred in it; the messages of John Quincy Adams are replete with it; General Jackson, in the case of Texas, recognized it; Mr. Clay asserted it; Mr. Webster asserted it. What other authorities are worthy of notice, after we have named these? That, sir, is all I have to say on that subject.

Now, sir, one other word. I have already said that, in asking to be excused from further service on the Committee on Foreign Affairs, I act from no feeling of personal pique. I make that request from my sense of public duty, in view of the relations that the chairman of the committee necessarily bears to the House of Representatives. It s possible, sir, upon many occasions for the House to differ, not only with the chairman of a committee, but with the committee. They are bound to take the instructions of the House; they are bound to conform to such instructions. They are bound by the judgment of the House, and they must act in conformity with it.

of Representatives. I cheerfully admit that they may be right and I may be wrong; but the criterion of my conduct must be my own judgment, and I cannot separate myself from the history of America to conform to the vote of the House of Representatives.

And, sir, I go a step further. Not only is it impossible that I should continue to represent the House in that responsible situation without misrepresenting myself, but, insignificant as I may be personally, I am unwilling, when this matter crosses the ocean, as it will cross it, I cannot consent to seem to submit to or acquiesce in or to have part or lot with this grave surrender of the power of the people. For, Mr. Speaker, whatever the insignificance of the person who moves this question, his connection with this vote elevates him to its importance; and I tell you there is more than one crowned head in Europe that now looks anxiously to the conduct of this House upon this very question, and a shout will go up from one end of despotic Europe to the other when it is known that the House of Representatives has confessed that its resolves are vain breath before the dictation of the President, and that the President is the United States, as Louis Napoleon is France. Insignificant though I be, I am not humble enough to allow my name to be associated with that humiliating abdication.

Mr. STEVENS moved to reconsider the vote by which the resolution was adopted; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

NEVADA.

Mr. BEAMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to introduce, and put on its passage, a bill supplementary to an act to enable the people of the Territory of Nevada to form a constitution and State government, and for the admission of said State into the Union on an equal footing with the original States.

Mr. HOLMAN. Is the bill reported from the Committee on Territories?

Mr. BEAMAN. No, sir; but I will make a statement which I think will be satisfactory. In the act which was passed enabling the people of the Territory of Nevada to form a constitution for admission as a State into the Union there was an entire omission to save the proceedings in the Supreme Court arising by appeal or otherwise from the courts in that Territory. I understand that there are appeals now pending in the Supreme Court, and there being no provision to save them it becomes necessary to pass this supplementary act. I think, sir, there can be no objection to its immediate passage.

There being no objection, the bill was received, read a first and second time, ordered to be en

Mr. LITTLEJOHN. Mr. Speaker, I was one of the members of this House who voted to lay this resolution on the table. It has been assumed in this debate that that vote indicated an opinion upon the subject-matter of the resolution itself. For one, sir, I wish it understood that I have advanced no opinion upon the resolution. The chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs introduced a resolution of very grave importance; he immediately moved the previous question; and, without the right to discuss the resolution, without the right to improve its phraseology, we were put upon a vote. So long as I hold a seat on this floor I never will, under such circumstances, be forced to give an opinion upon a grave national question. I voted, therefore, to lay the resolution on the table, first, because there was no opportunity for discussion, and secondly, because I believed it inexpedient at this time, in this crisis of our country's history, to bring up here any such disturbing question.

Sir, the time will come when England and France will understand the position of the American people on the question referred to by the gentleman from Maryland.

Now, sir, no man entertains more respect for the private character, the public position, and the integrity of the gentleman from Maryland than myself, and I trust this House will unanimously vote not to excuse him from serving on that committee.

The motion was disagreed to, and Mr. DAVIS, of Maryland, was not excused.

ADJOURNMENT OVER THE HOLIDAYS.

Mr. STEVENS. I rise to a privileged question, and submit the following concurrent resolution: Resolved, (the Senate concurring,) That when this House adjourns on Thursday, the 22d instant, it adjourn to meet on Thursday, January 5, 1865.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to say one word. It is pretty clear that we shall adjourn over the Christmas holidays. It would be impossible to keep the House together, and we should gain nothing

supposed that it would be better to fix the time as I have suggested. I have fixed, first, Thursday next, so that members living at a distance shall have opportunity to reach their homes. New Year's day comes on a Sunday, and of course members cannot leave or travel on that day, and I have fixed on Thursday, the 5th, for their return. For myself, I am willing to sit here all the time and attend to the public business.

The resolution was agreed to.

it was accordingly read the third time, and passed. Mr. BEAMAN moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. The latter motion was agreed to.

REBELLIOUS STATES.

Mr. ASHLEY. I ask the unanimous consent of the House for leave to report from the committee on the rebellious States a bill to guaranty to certain States whose governments have been usurped or overthrown, a republican form of government, in order that it may be recommitted and ordered to be printed.

Mr. PENDLETON. If the gentleman will move to reconsider and lay that motion on the table I will not object.

Mr. ASHLEY. I have no desire to bring the bill back by a motion to reconsider.

Mr. PENDLETON. Very well, then. The bill was received, read a first and second time, ordered to be printed, and recommitted to the same committee.

MARINE HOSPITAL AT ERIE.

Mr. SCOFIELD, by unanimous consent, submitted the following resolution, which was read, considered, and agreed to:

Resolved, That the Committee on Commerce be requested to inquire into the expediency of establishing a marine hospital at Erie, on Lake Erie, in the State of Pennsylvania.

The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time, and passed.

Mr. STEVENS moved to reconsider the vote by which the resolution was passed; and also

moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Mr. ASHLEY. I desire to give notice to the House that on Friday, the 6th of January, I propose to call up the motion to reconsider the vote by which the resolution for amending the Constitution of the United States was rejected, and at that time to put the bill upon its passage.

Mr. COX. To take a vote upon it that day? Mr. ASHLEY. To take it up for consideration. Mr. COX. I desire to say to the gentleman that members on this side of the House, generally, would prefer that he postpone the consideration of the matter until the Monday following the day named by him.

Mr. ASHLEY. Upon consultation with a