Mr. Fessenden followed, withdrawing his opposition, and concluded by avowing his purpose: “When the question appears before me in a shape that I can vote directly upon it, to vote that the gentleman who presents his credentials be permitted to take the oath and become a member of the Senate.”
February 24th, the debate was resumed, when Mr. Howe, of Wisconsin, spoke in favor of the admission, and Mr. Doolittle against it.
February 26th, Mr. Hale withdrew his proposition, so that the amendment of Mr. Sumner was in order. He then spoke as follows.
MR. PRESIDENT,—I am unwilling to speak again in this debate. Nothing but a sense of duty makes me break silence. But I am determined that this Chamber of high trust, so carefully guarded by the Constitution, shall not be opened to disloyalty, if any argument, any persuasion, or any effort of mine can prevent it.
Of course, in this debate something is assumed. It is simply this: that the evidence touching the loyalty of the claimant is not valueless; that it merits attention; that it affords probable cause, if I may adopt the phrase of the Roman Law, for distrust; that it is enough to put a party on the defensive. If this be the case, if all these affidavits, verified by the certificate so numerously signed, are not put aside as baseless, then the Senate must inquire into the charge. The result of the inquiry may be one way or another; but the inquiry must be made. Not to make it is abandonment of present duty; and not to assert the power is abandonment of an essential right of self-defence.
I have listened to the various arguments pressing the Senate to disarm itself, as they have been presented by able Senators, especially by the Senator from Maine [Mr. Fessenden] and the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Howe]; and I have felt, as I listened, new confidence in the constitutional power of the Senate to protect itself at all times against disloyalty, and in the duty to exercise this constitutional power at any time, early or late, in its completest discretion.
But it is said,—and I believe the Senator from Maine first presented this argument, which has been urged so strongly by the Senator from Wisconsin,—that, if we reject the present claimant, Oregon will be without a representative. And if we expel him, will not Oregon be without a representative? Surely this is no reason for hesitation in either case. I, too, desire a representative for Oregon; but I know full well that a disloyal representative is no representative,—or rather, Sir, is worse than no representative. In sustaining such a representative, you sacrifice substance to form,—you abandon the living principle, content with the dead letter,—you “keep the word of promise to the ear, and break it to the hope,”—you offer to the people of Oregon a stone, when they demand bread. In the name of the people of Oregon, whose wishes are manifest in the papers before us, I protest against the pretension that they can be represented by a disloyal person. Misrepresentation is not and never can be representation.
But it is said,—and I believe the Senator from Maine made the argument,—that the evidence against the claimant, if sustained, might justify expulsion, but will not justify refusal of admission to take the oath.
Mr. Fessenden. The Senator will state my position as I put it, and that was, if the same language and declarations were proved as coming from Mr. Stark while a Senator, I thought they might justify his expulsion.
Mr. Sumner. The Senator says, that, if the same language had been used while he was a Senator, it might justify expulsion. That is enough, Sir; and yet the Senator argues that it will not justify the Senate in refusing to open its doors, when he presents himself for admission. In plain terms, the Senate may pronounce the stigma of expulsion, but not the judgment of exclusion. A similar absurdity would be to say, that in private life an offence would justify kicking an intruder down stairs, but would not justify refusing him admission to our house. It is enough to state this case. Nothing can be clearer in the light of reason—and I say also of the Constitution—than that it is the duty of the Senate to meet disloyalty on the threshold,—to say to it, wherever it first shows itself, that this Chamber is no place for it. The English orator pictured his desolation, when he said that he was alone, and had none to meet his enemies in the gate.[204] Desolate will be the Senate, when it cannot meet disloyalty in the gate.