LOYALTY A QUALIFICATION REQUIRED IN A SENATOR.
Speeches in the Senate, February 18 and 26, 1862.
January 6, 1862, the credentials of Hon. Benjamin Stark as Senator of Oregon were presented, when Mr. Fessenden, of Maine, moved that the oath be not administered at present, and that the credentials, together with certain papers which he offered, be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. These papers, according to him, stated that Mr. Stark was understood by everybody in his vicinity to be an open and avowed supporter of Secession,—that he had openly defended the course of the South in seceding, and given utterance to sentiments totally at war with the institutions and the preservation of our country, such as approving the attack on Fort Sumter, making declarations to the effect, that, in the event of civil war, which, in fact, had already commenced, he would sell his property in Oregon and go South and join the Rebels,—that the Rebels were right,—that the Davis Government was, in fact, the only Government left,—that there was, in fact, no Government of the Union at all. Mr. Fessenden added, that numerous declarations of this kind were sworn to by persons certified and proved to his satisfaction to be perfectly reliable. In the course of the debate, Mr. Fessenden further remarked: “Now, Sir, I do not hesitate to say, that, if a part only of what is stated in these papers is true, I presume the Senator from Indiana [Mr. Bright] himself would vote upon the instant to expel this gentleman from the body, if he had taken the oath.”[195]
The motion of Mr. Fessenden was opposed by Mr. Bayard, of Delaware, and Mr. Bright, of Indiana, the latter objecting especially that the motion was without precedent. Here Mr. Sumner spoke briefly, presenting the point on which he subsequently enlarged.
I desire, Mr. President, to make one single remark. It is said that the proposition before the Senate is without precedent. New occasions teach new duties; precedents are made when the occasion requires. Never before has any person appeared to take a seat in this body whose previous conduct and declarations, as disclosed to the Senate, gave reasonable ground to distrust his loyalty. That case, Sir, is without precedent. It behooves the Senate to make a precedent in such an unprecedented case. At this very moment we are engaged in considering if certain Senators shall not be expelled for disloyalty; and it seems to me we shall do our duty poorly, if we receive a new comer with regard to whose loyalty there is reasonable suspicion.
January 10, the credentials of Mr. Stark and the accompanying motion were taken up for consideration again, when Mr. Bayard made an elaborate speech against the motion. Mr. Sumner replied in remarks which will be found in the Congressional Globe,[196] adducing the case of Philip Barton Key, a sitting member from Maryland, against whom it was alleged, that he “either now was or had been a British pensioner,” and that “an inquiry ought to be had in this matter, as, were it true, it would certainly be a disqualification.”[197] After further debate, the motion of Mr. Fessenden prevailed, and the credentials, with the papers, were referred to the Committee.