32D CONG.....3D SESS.

made to the resolution by the present Secretary of the Navy, they have bargained at ten and a half per cent., by way of exchange; and instead of purchasing American coal at the price at which it was offered to them, which by the tests made by the engineers in chief, and by the officers in command of steamers, is greatly preferable to English coal, they have bought English coal at a higher price. Now, I certainly did not intend to reflect on the Senator's constituent. I never would do injustice to any man, high or low; but when I see the Government funds squandered, and American interests neglected, in order that some parties may be benefited, I must take notice of it. I do not refer to the bureaus, by any means. I think it was really, from what I have heard and seen, through the agency of other persons; but that is the state of the case, and the community, the great constituency which we all represent, will judge whether I was right in what I said or not. Mr. BUTLER. All I have to say in rejoinder is, that Commodore Shubrick had a limited ad ministrative agency, and of course none of the blame or censure could fall upon him. It was a stipulation, I suppose, entered into by the Navy Department itself, perhaps, as the Senator says, under some influences; but I do not believe that Commodore Shubrick can be charged as having intentionally either perpetrated a wrong on the Government, or done anything to the prejudice of /American interests.

Mr. PEARCE. The remarks which have been made might seem to throw some censure upon the late Secretary of the Navy, Mr. Graham, and I think it due to him that I should state my recollection of a conversation which I had with him last summer in relation to the supply of coal for the Japan expedition. Though I do not profess to recollect all the points with accuracy, I think I can state, with a little certainty, a few things which will go to excuse that gentleman from any reproach which may be cast upon him.

I understand that Commmodore Perry came here to see the Secretary of the Navy, and urge upon him the importance of securing the supply of coal from persons of such undoubted respectability as that there could be no possibility of a failure to deliver the coal at the proper place and time. It was thought to be all-important to the success of the expedition, and that it might be entirely prostrated, or at least paralyzed if the coal was not put in such a condition as to be obtained when wanted. He was therefore induced to make the arrangement which he did make, and undoubtedly the statement of Commodore Shubrick is correct, with Howland & Aspinwall. I believe their competency was undoubted. Their ability to comply with the contract, at the precise time necessary for the delivery of coal, was unquestioned. But in addition to that, the Secretary then informed me, and I do not think that I am mistaken, that after examining the whole subject, the conclusion was arrived at that the operation would be quite as economical as that in the place of which it was substituted. Thus much I nave thought proper to state, and I will say no more, because I understand there is a full report on the subject by the present Secretary of the Navy.

CLAYTON-BULWER TREATY.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the resolutions offered by Mr. CLAYTON, on the 7th instant.

Mr. EVERETT. When the Senator from Delaware took his seat yesterday, I was desirous of catching the eye of the President, with the view of obtaining the floor to make a few remarks upon the subject which has been under discussion; and I should have been glad to have done so at that time. I did not succeed; and now by the courtesy of the honorable chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, who moved to postpone the subject, I have the opportunity of addressing you at this time. I am not desirous by any means of entering into the debate which has occupied the Senate during the past week. I presume it is hardly the expectation of the Senate that that debate should extend beyond those gentlemen who have been necessarily drawn into it. Being however, sir, under the impression that if the debate should close here altogether, it would leave a somewhat painful and unsatisfactory impression

Special Session-Clayton-Bulwer Treaty.

upon the public mind in reference to the state of things in Central America, so far as we are concerned; and having had the honor, not long ago, in another capacity, to submit a communication to the President, which was transmitted to Congress, in reference to this subject, I am desirous, and I think it would be perhaps in some degree for the public interest, that some further explanation should be made in reference to the state of things in Central America at this time, so far as we are connected with it.

In doing this, which is really the principal, and I may say almost the only object which I have in view in claiming the attention of the Senate for a short time, I shall wish to make some reference to the proposition of the 30th of April last, which it was the object of the Senator from Delaware to get before the Senate. Inasmuch, therefore, as the Senate has made a special order for this day, for the election of certain officers of the Senate, it would be an accommodation to me, and I think also to the Senate, if the Senate would consent, by general acquiescence, to pass the resolutions of the Senator from Delaware. I understand it was his expectation in moving them, that the second resolution would require considerable time to meet it; that the answer would not come before the next session. It is a call for general information in reference to the affairs of Central America. But with reference to the first resolution, which calls for an answer with regard to the proposition of the 30th of April, it can be answered in half an hour, if it is the pleasure of the President. The papers can be sent in to the Senate to-morrow or the next day, and they can be referred to without inconvenience or impropriety, and it would be an accommodation to me that that should be the case before I proceed to address the Senate as I shall wish to do on the subject. I have consulted the honorable chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations in reference to this matter, and he approves of the course which I suggest. I therefore respectfully ask that the resolutions of the Senator from Delaware be passed for the object that I have stated. The proposition of the 30th of April should be communicated to the Senate, and when we get that, the discussion of the subject can be resumed, if such is the pleasure of the Senate.

Mr. MASON. The honorable Senator from Massachusetts did me the honor to confer with me this morning on the expediency of passing the first resolution offered by the Senator from Delaware, in order to bring before the Senate the information to which the Senator from Massachusetts refers, and very properly refers, as pertinent to the subject under debate. It refers to the message of the President of the United States of the 18th of February last, communicating the correspondence of the British Minister in reference to the affairs of Costa Rica and Nicaragua. That letter has been referred to in the Senate in a general way; but the information is not before us, and cannot be brought before us without the adoption of this resolution. I submit, therefore, cheerfully to the request of the Senator, that the Senate should pass the first resolution. The second resolution, before it is passed, I think should be altered so as very much to enlarge the scope of it.

The PRESIDENT. The Senator from Virginia asks for a division of the question. The question will be on the adoption of the first resolution.

The first resolution, which is as follows, was adopted:

"Resolved, That the President be respectfully requested, if compatible, in his opinion, with the public interest, to communicate to the Senate the propositions mentioned in the letter of the Secretary of State accompanying the Executive message to the Senate of the 18th February last, as having been agreed upon by the Department of State, the British Minister, and the State of Costa Rica, on the 30th of April, 1852, having for their object the settlement of the territorial controversies between the States and Governments bordering on the river San Juan."

Mr. EVERETT. I now move a further postponement of the consideration of this subject until Monday next.

Mr. BADGER. I would suggest to the Chair whether, as these two resolutions were offered as one subject, the postponement of one would not carry the whole subject with it-the first resolution as well as the second?

SENATE.

The PRESIDENT. They can be divided by unanimous consent. The first resolution is adopted, and the question is on postponing the further consideration of the second.

Mr. MASON. I have no desire to interfere with the proposition of the honorable Senator from Massachusetts; but I entertained the idea that we should be able to adjourn on Monday next, sine die.

Several SENATORS. Oh, no; we cannot do that. Mr. MASON. I submit the suggestion that the consideration of the subject be postponed until Saturday.

Mr. EVERETT. I have no objection.

Mr. MASON. I make that motion to test the sense of the Senate.

Mr. SHIELDS. It will be utterly impossible to do that. There is business of the Senate which requires that we should sit longer than until next Monday. I do not think it will be possible to adjourn at that time.

Mr. MASON. To test the sense of the Senate, I move to postpone the resolution until Saturday.

Mr. BADGER. I move to amend the motion by inserting Monday instead of Saturday. Mr. BADGER's motion was agreed to.

PAY AND MILEAGE OF DAVID L. YUlee.

The Senate then took up for consideration the resolution submitted by Mr. MORTON on the 7th instant, to allow per diem and mileage to David L. Yulee during the time he contested the seat of Mr. MALLORY.

"Resolved, That there be paid out of the contingent fund of the Senate to the Hon. David L.. Yulee, a sum equal to the amount of mileage and per diem compensation of a Senator, from the commencement of the first session of the Thirty-second Congress to the 27th of August, 1852, the day on which the Senate decided that the Hon. Stephen R.

Mallory, whose seat in the Senate was claimed by him, was duly elected a member of the Senate from the State of Florida."

Mr. MORTON. All I can say in advocacy of the resolution is this: I only ask for my former colleague that justice or liberality which has heretofore been given to persons in similar cases. It is the custom of this and the other House to pay the persons who contest a seat the per diem and mileage for the proper time.

Mr. BRIGHT. I do not know that I wish to be considered in the attitude of opposing the resolution; but as I was chairman of the committee that had charge of the contested-election case, I think it is my duty to remind the Senate that the committee unanimously reported against the right of Mr. Yulee to a seat here, and the Senate as unanimously confirmed that report. Now, if it is the pleasure of the Senate to pay the mileage and per diem under such circumstances, I shall not object; but I desire the Senate before they vote, to know that the committee were unanimous in reporting against the right of Mr. Yulee, and the Senate, without a dissenting voice, on the call of the yeas and nays, confirmed the report.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I desire to say, and the Senate will recollect, that I wished a postponement of this question, that I might have an opportunity of examining it, and making a speech upon it. The examination I had given the subject convinced me, so far as it had gone, that there was great plausibility in the claim of Mr. Yulee, and I was inclined to think at that time-and I believe no man can doubt-that he believed he was entitled to a seat, and prosecuted his claim to it in good faith. No one that knows him can doubt that he believed that. And when a Senator prosecutes a claim in good faith, I have yet to learn that the Senate have ever declined to make such compensation as is asked by this resolution. If I recollect right, we have within this year paid a gentleman who did not claim a seat, or assert his right to it. It is true there were members of the Senate who thought him entitled to a seat, although he did not claim it. He set up no claim whatever. I believe there has not been a case in the history of the Government, where there has been a contest, in which the party who lost his seat has not been paid. Certainly we have not refused to pay where there has been ne imputation that the contest was not made in good faith.

Mr. MASON. I think it due to the occasion to say, as I was a member of the select committee

32D CONG.....3D SESS.

on the subject, that although that committee, as suggested by the honorable Senator from Indiana, was unanimous in the judgment to which they ultimately came, after a full examination of the subject, and although, in my opinion, and in the opinion of the committee, the purely legal question was against Mr. Yulee, yet there can be as little doubt that the gentleman honestly entertained the very opposite opinion to the committee; and it was evinced, by the degree of perseveranceindustrious perseverance on his part to bring the subject to a favorable result. He pressed the case very strongly, and with an earnestness which showed the honesty of his intention, and his desire to have the question properly determined. He employed, and had before the committee, gentlemen of the bar very elevated in their position and of great distinction, and he must have incurred a serious expense. So that although the opinion of the committee was against him, as well as the opinion of the Senate, yet, in my judgment, the Senate should give him the compensation which this resolution proposes to give.

Kentucky, (Mr. Meriwether,) who, I understand, has not taken the pay awarded to him under the order of the Senate, but clearly would be entitled to take it if he thought proper to do so. That, I say, was a very different case from this. There are many gentlemen in this body yet who think that he was entitled to the seat; that the limitation imposed by the Governor of the State of Kentucky in the pro tem. appointment given by him, was a limitation not within his power to make; that he had power to fill the vacancy for the full time and not for the time limited in the appointment. In this instance, however, but I am not going into the case; it has been settled-Senators understand why it was Mr. Yulee claimed the seat. He alleged that twenty-nine blank votes elected him. That was the point in a few words. With the honorable Senator from North Carolina, I never believed that he had the color of a claim, nor did I suppose at the time the case was disposed of, that he would assert his right to the compensation resulting from the prosecution of his claim; but if it is the pleasure of the Senate to give it to him, be it so.

Mr. SEWARD. I shall vote for this resolution, upon the ground that when Mr. Yulee presented his objections to the sitting member, I was uncertain whether the election of the sitting member was valid or not. The objections were such as at least, in my opinion, called for a legislative investigation. The result of the investigation removed all doubt in my mind, as it did in the mind of every other Senator. I am sure that there was such a question in the way of the sitting member, that, to do justice to the State of Florida, it was necessary to examine it. Now, I think there would have been no such investigation if it had not been brought about by Mr. Yulee; and it was his right to bring it about. I think, under such circumstances, it was his duty to bring it up; and having brought it up, he certainly ought, accord

Mr. BUTLER. Mr. Yulee represented a State that is a neighboring one to my own. I know him very well; and while my judgment from the beginning was decidedly against him, yet if it had been a question depending entirely upon commonlaw principles, he would have succeeded. And when I attended before the committee, and heard the arguments made by eminent counsel whom he employed, I know there were many friends who changed their opinion, who were of opinion that Mr. Yulee was right. I must say another thing, that so far as regards that discussion, many important principles were discussed, and I think setiled-settled by the judgment of the Senate. Certainly, they were presented forcibly by arguments; and I am satisfied that Mr. Yulee's perseverancehis tenacity of purpose everybody knows-upon that occasion, evinced what the Senator from Illinois says, that he was conducting this protesting against the honorable Senator who fills the seat, in good faith. In that view, I am reconciled to the resolution.

Mr. BADGER. As I was on the Select Committee, and concurred entirely in its report, and from the first examination of the case, and after the arguments, could find nothing on which to hang a doubt, I think it proper to add a word to what has been said by the Senator from Virginia. I think he is certainly correct. However clear may have been the judgment of the committee and the Senate, the gentleman who was claiming the seat was firmly convinced that he was entitled to it. And there is another consideration which weighs with me. He was asserting that claim, not with the view of procuring the seat for himself in this body, but to vindicate what he believed to be a constitutional principle and the right of the State of Florida; for he declared himself unequivocally, that that being his object and his sole object, if the vote of the Senate should award the seat to him, he would not take it, but would refer the matter again to the judgment of the Legislature of Florida. It being a case, then, of a gentleman, who, however mistaken, was yet sincere, and who though prosecuting the contest with zeal and energy and at great trouble and expense, was not seeking anything for himself, either of honor or of profit, but a mere vindication of what he believed to be a legal, constitutional truth, and the right of his State, I think it is but fair and just to pay him the compensation. I hope, therefore, the resolution will be agreed to.

Mr. BRIGHT. I did not mean to intimate by the remarks which I made when first up, that I doubted the sincerity of the contestant in the case referred to. I have no doubt that he believed he was honestly entitled to the place, and believed that at common-law he was entitled to the seat. He prosecuted it, as stated by the Senator from North Carolina, with the view as he said of settling a great principle; and if it be the pleasure of the Senate, under these circumstances, to award him the pay and mileage which belong to a sitting member of this body, I certainly raise no objection. I have my doubts, however, as to the propriety of such a result.

It is a very different case from the one referred to by the Senator from Illinois. I suppose he referred to the case of the honorable Senator from

to the past practice of the Senate, to receive some compensation.

Mr. ADAMS. When this resolution was first offered by the Senator from Florida, I opposed it, and I have seen no reason since to change my opinion. I then thought, and I still think, that if an individual thinks proper to contest the seat of a member elected by his State Legislature, he has a right to do so; but he should do it at his own hazard, unless the grounds for the contest are so plausible as to produce some division of opinion in the body. It is known that the Senate gave to Mr. Yulee a most patient investigation. They gave him a committee of this body-a learned and wise committee. That committee heard his counsel, and after every Senator had made up his mind, he was permitted to appear at the bar and make a speech of two hours at the close of the session when our appropriation bills were in danger, and when every Senator, notwithstanding his respect to him personally, had so completely made up his mind that there were few listening to his argument, and then after having consumed that period of anxiety and excitement, the liberty was extended to him to consume another hour; and after all that, not one single member of the body voted to give him his seat.

SENATE.

the claim is an unfounded one, I can see no propriety in making the payment. If we do that, every man who thinks proper to do so, may come here and set up a claim, and although he may have the unanimous vote against him, he must have his mileage and per diem. He may stave off the decision the whole of the session, and go home and attend to his business and come back here at the end of a session of nine months, and obtain pay for the whole time. It may seem to some to be a matter of no consequence, but the principle involved is an important one, and we should properly decide it.

Mr. MORTON. It is perhaps due to myself and to my late colleague that I should here say a word. During the pendency of the contest before the Senate between my late and my present colleague, I studiously avoided participating in it in any form or shape. The acts and doings of my Legislature were passed in review before the Senate; but propriety on my part, I thought, required that I should not participate in the contest so long as it assumed no broader ground than the contest between the two gentlemen. In truth, the questions involved were constitutional and parliamentary questions, which I did not think myself qualified to decide; and I was willing that they should be decided by the able parliamentarians and constitutional lawyers elected by the Senate to decide the question. They, after nine months' consideration, decided that question, in which decision the Senate acquiesced. I have not a word to say in opposition to the decision. My situation was a delicate one. My relations were of the most friendly character towards both gentlemen. They both belong to a different party organization from the one to which I belong; and of course my vote on such a question could not have been controlled by a consideration of that kind. But I think it due to my late colleague, who now stands in the position of a constituent to me, that I should say here to the Senate, as most Senators who know him will believe, that he honestly and religiously believed that he was entitled to the seat which he demanded; that he believed it involved a high constitutional question which should be decided by the Senate; that he was not influenced by any sordid or mercenary motives in prosecuting the contest; that nothing of the kind had influenced him, but that he honestly believed that he was entitled to the seat.

As to the allusion which the Senator from Mississippi makes to the time during which the contest was pending before the Senate, the committee will bear me out in saying that it was no fault of my late colleague. The Senate will recollect the constitution of that committee; that after it was first appointed, some three or four were called home and vacated their seats, and other members had to be appointed. My late colleague was anxious that a prompt decision should be had; every courtesy was extended to him. He was heard before the committee and before the Senate. It is true he was heard, as the Senator from Mississippi said; but, if I may use an Irish bull, he was heard but not listened to. It was too near the close of the session for the Senate to attempt to review and pass judgment upon the decision of the committee.

I have felt bound in justice to my late colleague to say this. I think he was operated upon by no mercenary views and motives whatever. If he had been he would have gained nothing, for I doubt not that the loss of time, which was valuable to him, and the expenses incurred in the pros

amount of compensation proposed to be given him by this resolution.

Mr. BORLAND. I shall vote for this resolution, as I think all such resolutions have heretofore been adopted, so far as I can learn, both in the Senate and in the House of Representatives, without any reference to the question involved as affecting the right of the sitting member, or the one who lost his seat. All that I understand has been looked to in the action of either House, in settling a question of this kind is, Did the individual act in good faith in prosecuting his claim?

Mr. ADAMS. I will explain what I understand to be the case. Formerly, when an indi vidual claimed the seat of the sitting member, and the sitting member was ousted, then the sitting

32D CONG.....3D SESS.

A SENATOR. The Senator is mistaken.

Mr. BORLAND. The Senator says I am mistaken. I am aware that my information is not perhaps as extensive as that of other Senators; but

am not aware of an instance. I think I may speak confidently in saying there has been no instance in the proceedings of the Senate.

But, Mr. President, something has been said with regard to the unanimous decision of the Senate upon the contested question-that there was no difference of opinion in the committee or in the Senate. It is true, that was the result; but we all know-nothing is better known-that in the beginning of that contest, and for a long time during its pendency, there was great doubt in the minds of gentlemen-very great doubt. I know that while some Senators doubted, others were of the opinion that Mr. Yulee was entitled to his seat, but who changed their minds after the investigation was had, and voted the other way. And some gentlemen did not vote at all, because, as they alleged at the time, the report of the committee had not been long enough before the Senate to enable members to examine it for themselves, and consider all the questions which were presented. I know several, myself among them, who failed to vote for that reason. Sir, nobody doubted, I apprehend, that Mr. Yulee prosecuted his claim in good faith, whatever may be their opinion of his judgment in the matter. I know further that before he commenced the prosecution of it, he consulted a great many Senators; that he took the opinion of a number of Senators, learned and experienced. While some expressed the opinion that he was entitled to the seat, hardly any whom he consulted failed to say there were plausible grounds in his favor, and really no good reason for supposing a good claim might not be made out. He undertook the prosecution of it, after consultation and advice; and I am satisfied upon as honest convictions as any man ever entertained that he was entitled to the seat.

Now, sir, with regard to the case quoted by the Senator from Illinois, and by the Senator from Indiana, (the Kentucky case,) it makes no difference whether the gentleman claimed his right to a seat or not. The Senate voted, I believe unanimously, that he, without contesting his seat, without even asserting his right to it, should have the per diem and mileage. It was supposed by many that there was a great principle involved, which was brought before the Senate to be settled. And in consideration of that fact, and because it was not one of those cases pressed before the Senate in a factious spirit, or for any personal advantage to the individual, the Senate awarded the per diem and mileage, acknowledging that it was convinced that he was entitled to it.

Mr. HOUSTON. I do not desire to occupy the time of the Senate, but I will take the liberty for calling for the yeas and nays on the question. I think there is no analogy between this case and the case referred to by the Senator from Arkansas, the Kentucky case. There was a division of sentiment in the Senate in relation to that case, and it was argued here by Senators. In the case of Mr. Yulee, so far as I recollect, there was no discussion in the Senate, nor any speeches made except by the contestant. I believe he convinced no one of anything except that his zeal extended only to an anxiety to displace the sitting member. However that was, and however zealous he might have been in the advocacy of constitutional principles, and however strong his desire might be to maintain them, I could not pretend to say; but it was very singular that the Senate should unanimously concur in the opinion that he was not entitled to a seat, and that he alone, when the facts were understood, as they must have been, should believe that he was entitled to a seat, and that the sitting member was not. Whatever expense may have accrued from the employment of counsel, Mr. President, forms no part of the consideration

with me.

I do not know how other gentlemen regard the system of receiving counsel before the committees in the argument of cases; but for myself, it is a system that I would not encourage. If trials are to go on in committee rooms, and the committees are to give audience to the counsel that go there for the purpose of litigating cases, there will be no end to it. I understand the gentlemen of the Senate to have sufficient capacity, especially such as constituted that committee, to arrive at sensible and just conclusions upon any subject, and to be able to make a decision as learned and sensible and just, as if they had all the able legal counsel in the United States to argue the case before them. It is the case in both branches of the National Legislature, that counsel are received and the cases tried pro and con in the case of impeachment, which are always ex parte; and the body acts as an inquest, and a special trial takes place, and no conclusions ever can be arrived at, because days are consumed just by the presentation of counsel and elaborate arguments. The cases here in this Senate, and if I understand it, in the House of Representatives also, are to be prepared for investigation in committees, and presented in the body where the trial in chief takes place.

If the gentleman in whose behalf this resolution has been introduced was the only human being mistaken in a case, the facts of which he must have misunderstood, his judgment certainly must have been very defective, and I think that if the rejection of this resolution would operate to rebuke gentlemen under similar circumstances, it ought to be rejected. I call for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BRODHEAD. As the yeas and nays are called, I beg leave to say that I think the honorable Senator from Texas misunderstands the true point in the case.

He seems to think that it was a question of fact, and that Mr. Yulee should have ascertained that fact as well as the members of this body. If I recollect the case it was a question of law, and one with regard to which I doubted very much. The only question now to be decided is, as to the intentions and motives of Mr. Yulee. If he came here in good faith to bring that great question to the notice of the Senate, as he did with great ability, then, according to the usage of the Senate, he ought to be paid, and no invidious distinction should be made against him. Believing, as I do, that he came here in good faith, and knowing that he labored assiduously to get an early decision of the question, I shall most cheerfully vote for the resolution.

Mr. HOUSTON. The honorable Senator from Pennsylvania misapprehends me entirely. I did not state that it was a mere question of fact which was to be tried by the committee. It was a matter of law, as I understood it, and it was referred to a most select and judicious committee of gentlemen learned in the law, perhaps quite as much so as the gentleman who claimed the seat, or as the counsel he introduced before the committee, and equally competent to arrive at a just decision. It was a matter of principle that they could investigate as well as the fact. I do not think any evidence was introduced to sustain the claim of the applicant to the seat. I never heard there were any facts in the case but those which were admitted by all parties, and it was strictly a matter of constitutional law which they had to decide. In arriving at a conclusion, they had as many lights before the committee as could be furnished by the most able counsel, and were just as competent to decide the case correctly as after all the elaborate arguments of the counsel upon the subject. I cannot suppose that it was because it was a principle contended for by the gentleman, and that principle was in itself absurd, without any reason or foundation, we should vote an appropriation for his benefit, if he misapprehended a principle of law; for he was a learned jurist himself, and ought to have understood it. If his anxiety extended no further than merely to have a constitutional principle investigated and decided, the committee were competent to do that; and if he employed counsel, it was extraneous to the necessities of the case entirely, and I cannot vote for the resolution, either to cover the contingency of his attendance or for the employment of counsel.

Mr. WALKER. I shall vote for this resolu

SENATE.

tion, and I believe the Senate would make an invidious distinction in the case of Mr. Yulee if they refuse to adopt it. It is claimed here that Mr. Yulee, for the principle for which he was contending, was negatived or decided against by a unanimous vote of the Senate. I do not remember precisely how the vote stood. If my recollection however serves me properly, the record will show that the number by which it was settled against him was a very small list of members; that there were a great many who did not vote at all, a great many who at the time had not made up their minds, and did not wish to be committed upon the record. I believe it will be found that I did not vote at all; and to this day, I must say, that whatever I may feel as to persons, I have extreme doubts in regard to the principle contended for by Mr. Yulee. What was it? It was a thing that affects us in the western and northwestern States, where the township system of government prevails, where the people come out and are called upon to say who they want for officers. Suppose a man is put in nomination, and there are twentynine who vote for him by name, and there are twenty-nine others present who cry out to the chairman of the board "Blank;" what, sir, would be the duty of the man sitting as chairman of the board, and of the board itself? To declare that there was no election? If that were so declared in eight cases out of ten an election might be prevented. Here is a plain case which comes practically to the mind of every man who comes from a State where the township system prevails.

This might be a practical question in those cases, and I must say, to this day my mind is not clear upon the point; and when gentlemen arise here and pronounce the principle raised as absurd, it seems to me they do not reflect upon the length to which the matter might be carried. It was a majority of the Senate I believe who voted unanimously that there was nothing in this thing. That is the way Mr. Mallory took his seat. There is no one more gratified to associate with that gentleman than myself. He represents his State most ably, and in social life is all that we could ask of him. But it is not a question as between the present sitting member and the one who contested his right. It is a principle that runs into the law of election; and it is one, I will venture to say if you bring it up in a different way, the Senate is not at this day prepared to determine. I do not agree, therefore, with those who pronounce this thing an absurdity.

If this be the state of the case, where was Mr. Yulee's fault? I believe this is the state of the case; and the record will show that there was far from being a unanimity in the body by an affirmative voice in favor of the absurdity of Mr. Yulee's position. The Senate was thin at the time, if I recollect aright, and by no means all who were present voted on the question. They were not satisfied with regard to the matter. The subject, however, is not now before the Senate. I am willing to bow to their decision. But this thing might come up with some phases that would leave the Senate exceedingly embarrassed to decide it. This, then, was the position of Mr. Yulee. He was contending for a principle of law, and contending for that alone; for as it resulted, really he was not contending for the seat for the purpose of occupying it; and I must say it would look a little hard to him, after he has persevered in the matter, as he did apparently with candor, with sincerity, and with magnanimous views, that he should now be turned off entirely, and told not only that he was voted and expelled as it were, by the unanimous vote of the Senate, but that it also should be said to him, contrary I believe to almost every other case that has ever come before the Senate, that he was not entitled to its consideration at all, so far as having a portion of the expenses with which he was embarrassed, paid out of the contingent fund of the Senate. It is in that point of view I look at the matter. our honorable associate in Congress. He occupied an honorable position in this body. We then fellowshipped with him. We looked upon him as one who represented, and represented well, the interests of Florida. Whether Florida considered her interests as well represented by him or not, I do not know, but we considered him as an efficient member, and in social life he was a gentleman.

He was

32D CONG.....3D SESS.

We never saw him in a debauch. We never saw him degrade himself below the position of a gentle

man.

We always found him a kind, courteous, and affable gentleman; and it does look to me a little hard that when he is not here, when he is no longer before us, that we should in this manner turn the cold shoulder to him, and not be willing to do for him what we always do in such cases. I do not let my recollections go in this manner. I remember that man with kindly recollection. I found him here when I came here. There are few in this Senate who were here then; and I shall continue to remember him in the kindly relations of social life, as a gentleman; one who for the time being, occupied a respectable and honorable seat here; and when gentlemen assert that the position which he took in this contest was absurd, they will, I think, have some abatement of their zeal and earnestness in that assertion, when they reflect into how many channels the doctrine for which Mr. Yulee was contending may run. I think that we ought, in justice to Mr. Yulee, vote this compensation. I shall be glad to see it done.

Mr. BRIGHT. I can say, in all sincerity, that my recollections of the late Senator from Florida are of the same character with those mentioned by the Senator from Wisconsin; but a sense of public duty often compels legislators to forget personal feelings, and that is the case with myself in this instance. If I were to consult my own personal feelings, I would vote out of the public Treasury the amount of compensation and mileage proposed to be appropriated by the resolution under consideration. But, sir, my sense of public duty, as a legislator, prompts me to a different course. I have no anxiety to extend this debate, but I rise mainly to correct some remarks made by the Senator from Wisconsin.

He compares this to the case of a ballot before the people. There is no analogy whatever between the two cases. By a law of Florida, passed in 1844, no officer could be elected in the joint vote of the two Houses of her Legislature unless he received a majority of all the votes elected-not a majority of all the votes present, merely. To elect any gentleman a Senator, a judge of the circuit or district court, he must receive not merely a majority of the votes present, but a majority of the votes elected to the Legislature. Now, on the first ballot for a United States Senator, there being fiftynine members in the two Houses, and there being fifty-eight votes in the joint meeting of the two Houses at that election-on the first ballot Mr. Yulee received twenty-nine, and "blank" received twenty-nine, one member being absent. The presiding officer declared that there was no election. A second, third, and fourth ballot were had with a like result. The convention adjourned until the following Monday, when the sitting member from Florida [Mr. Mallory] received thirty-one votes, and was declared duly elected, came here, was sworn in, and took his seat. Now, what did Mr. Yulee contend for? That the twenty-nine votes he received elected him. Why? Because the twenty-nine votes given for "blank were not legal votes, entitled to be recognized by law. Perhaps he might have been correct, according to the common-law principle, if there had not been a statutory enactment staring him in the face, which made it a clear proposition, that by the laws of Florida no man could be elected to any offices indicated in the law, who did not, as I remarked before, receive a majority of all the votes elected to the Legislature. That was the point upon which the committee decided the case, and that was the point understood by the Senate when they ratified that report.

I do not propose, however, to extend my remarks upon the subject. As I remarked before, I do not wish to be considered as standing out alone against the payment of this modicum of money, perhaps two or three thousand dollars, to Mr. Yulee. If I believed he had a right to it, I would vote for it. If I consulted my personal feelings I would vote for it; but I believe the precedent would be a wrong one to set, and I believe he had no color of claim to the seat; and in that view I shall take the responsibility of voting against the resolution, notwithstanding the personal relations in which I stood to Mr. Yulee.

Mr. THOMPSON, of Kentucky. As I shall perhaps be in a small minority in voting against

Special Session-Election of Officers.

this resolution, I desire to say a word or two in reference to it. Both in this House and in the other branch of Congress, it seems to me there has grown up a great abuse in reference to this thing of paying gentlemen who contest seats. The commonlaw notion is, that he who sets up a false clamor, whether it be in an action of ejectment for land, or in regard to personal property, if he fails to establish his right, he is amerced, and gets no mercy for his false clamor. A man is returned to either House of Congress. The presumption of the law is that the certifying and returning officers have done their duty. By the presumption of common sense and the common-law, the man returned by them is supposed to be the man entitled to his

seat.

A gentleman chooses to contest it. When he makes that contest, and, after a fair trial, loses it, and it is decided that he is not entitled to itbut one man is entitled to the per diem, the mileage, and the perquisites, whatever they be, you duplicate the pay for a contest which has delayed you in time, and caused you various other expenses; and thus, instead of letting the commonlaw notion prevail, you turn round and say that you will pay him for contesting a seat which you yourselves say he was not entitled to. If a man chooses to contest a seat, let him do it at his peril. I do not believe in the public policy of remunerating a man for coming here to contest a seat which you, by your own judgment, decide by the law of the land that he is not entitled to. It looks very much like belonging to that branch of the law pertaining to barratry and champerty., It does not look like the straight-forward, AngloSaxon notion about the stirrers-up of litigation. I say this without reference to the parties in the two cases which have been alluded to.

SENATE.

seat and its perquisites and profits who is entitled to them, and then the man who by the judgment of the proper tribunal fails in his claim, let him go out of court and take nothing by his declaration. I shall vote against the resolution, while towards Mr. Meriwether and Mr. Yulee I have nothing but the kindest feelings. In my judgment it is impolitic to sanction such a principle.

Mr. ADAMS. If the Senate is prepared to vote, I have no objection; but if the debate is to continue, we have a special order for the election of our officers.

Several SENATORS. Let us vote now.

Mr. ADAMS. I just wish to say that no one has said aught against Mr. Yulee personally.

Mr. PETTIT. Not being advised upon this question sufficient to do justice either way, I ask to be excused from voting.

The PRESIDENT. The Senator will be excused, if there is no objection.

The yeas and nays were ordered; and being taken, resulted-yeas 23, nays 19; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Badger, Borland, Brodhead, Butler, Cooper, Dodge of Wisconsin, Dodge of lowa, Douglas, Evans, Everett, Fitzpatrick, Gwin, Hunter, James, Jones of Iowa, Mason, Morton, Sebastian, Seward, Shields, Soulé, Sumner, and Walker-23.

NAYS-Messrs. Adams, Atchison, Atherton, Bayard, Benjamin, Bright, Chase, Geyer, Hamlin, Houston, Norris, Pearce, Phelps, Rusk, Stuart, Thompson of Kentucky, Thomson of New Jersey, Weller, and Wright—19. So the resolution was adopted.

ELECTION OF OFFICERS.

The PRESIDENT. The hour has arrived which the Senate set apart for the election of cer

tain officers of the Senate.

Mr. ADAMS. If I have the unanimous consent of the Senate, I move that Asbury Dickins be elected Secretary, Dunning R. McNair Sergeant-at-Arms, and Isaac Holland Doorkeeper.

Mr. SHIELDS. I will move to postpone the execution of the order until Monday next. I presume there will be no objection to that motion. Several SENATORS. This hour has been fixed upon for proceeding to the election.

Mr. ADAMS. I hope we may have a vote on my proposition.

Mr. SHIELDS. There is no absolute neces

if it lies over until Monday it will produce no difficulty. We ought to have an Executive session.

In the other branch of Congress I for some time belonged to the Committee on Elections. We had various contests and various controversies; and I regret to say that almost universally in the committee and in the House, the opinion of the members upon the legal question affecting the right of the member, went with the party, not by the law. A large volume of contested-election cases was given to us to enlighten us upon that subject. It contained precedents that were never followed, never looked after. We had there year after yearsity for proceeding with the election to-day, and contested-election cases as you begin to have them now in the Senate; and I insist the only way to discourage the thing, is to decide that one man is a Senator and entitled to the emoluments and to the pay; and that whoever undertakes to contest the seat of a member and fails should suffer for his false clamors. That will stop contested-election cases. I have read a vast number of these precedents. I remember when quite a young lawyer, the celebrated case of the contested election of Moore and Letcher of Kentucky. The other branch of Congress, after deliberating eight or ten months, and giving both parties the mileage and per diem, decided, although somebody must have been elected, that there was no election, and it was referred to the people. They could not count the votes, I suppose, and both came back and had a second race. This thing of putting it under the head of courtesy and compliment; this thing of saying that the man who contests is to be paid for it; that he does it for mere patriotism, is, in my judgment, all wrong. Malus usus abolendus est. While I am here, I will vote for no such claim.

The Senator from Indiana has said that a late Senator from Kentucky declared that he would not take the pay voted to him. I mean to say nothing harsh of that Senator or of Mr. Yulee; but as I understood the thing in Kentucky, the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Meriwether) came here not contesting the seat. By its own mere motion voluntarily, without any claim or pretense, the Senate gave him a sort of pension, voted the mileage and per diem to that gentleman until the time when the case was decided. The Senator from Maryland tells me that instead of the Senator from Indiana being correct, Mr. Meriwether has received the pay. Am I mistaken or not? The gentleman says I am right. Where is this thing to stand? I say that taking cases as they come up here, not to say anything harsh against either of the gentlemen, it would be an encouragement for contestants to come to this body and to the other branch of Congress and claim seats. The old common-law doctrine is, let the man have the

Mr. DODGE, of Iowa. I hope the motion of the Senator from Illinois will not prevail. I hope the Senate will proceed to the execution of its order, adopted upon its deliberate judgment, which was a proceeding with which in the initiative or the consummation I had nothing to do. But the time has arrived for carrying it out, and I hope it will be done.

The motion to postpone was not agreed to.

Mr. ADAMS. I now ask the unanimous consent of the Senate to pursue the course which I suggested, that the persons whom I have named be unanimously elected.

Mr. SMITH. I think we ought to elect the officers of the Senate in the ordinary way.

The PRESIDENT. Objection being made, Senators will prepare their ballots.

The Senate then proceeded to ballot for the officers, with the following result: For Secretary.

Whole number of votes cast..
Of which Asbury Dickins received.
B. B. French
Colonel Hickey

For Sergeant-at-Arms.
Whole number of votes cast..

.42 .37

66

66

1

.36