CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. The second session of the Fortieth Congress* convened at Washington on December 2, 1867. For the President's Message, see PUBLIO DOCUMENTS, ANNUAL CYCLOPEDIA, 1867. *The following is a list of the members of Congress: SENATE. Alabama-Willard Warner, George E. Spencer. Arkansas-Alexander McDonald, Benjamin F. Rice.* California-Cornelius Cole, John Conness. Connecticut-James Dixon, Orrin S. Terry. Delaware-James A. Bayard, Willard Saulsbury. Florida-Adonijah S. Welch, July 2d, Thomas W. Osborn, June 30, 1868. Georgia Illinois-Lyman Trumbull, Richard Yates. New Hampshire - James W. Patterson, Aaron H. Cragin. New Jersey-Alexander G. Cattell, Frederick T. Frelinghuysen. New York-Roscoe Conkling, Edwin D. Morgan. North Carolina-Joseph C. Abbott, John Poor. Ohio-John Sherman, Benjamin F. Wade. Oregon-Henry W. Corbett, George H. Williams. Pennsylvania-Simeon Cameron, Charles R. Buckalew. Rhode Island-William Sprague, Henry B. Anthony. South Carolina-Thomas J. Robertson, Frederick A. Sawyer. Tennessee-David D. Patterson, J. S. Fowler. Vermont-Justin S. Morrill, George F. Edmunds. West Virginia-Peter G. Van Winkle, Waitman T. Willey. Wisconsin-Timothy O. Howe, James R. Doolittle. Not admitted at this session. Mississippi-William L. Sharkey, J. L. Alcorn. HOUSE. Alabama-Francis W. Kellogg, Charles W. Buckley, Benjamin W. Norris, Charles W. Pierce, John B. Callis, Thomas Haughey. Arkansas-Eagan W. Roots, J. F. Elliott, Thomas Boles. California-Samuel B. Axtell, William Higby, James A. Johnson. Connecticut-Richard D. Hubbard, Julius Hotchkiss, Henry H. Starkweather, William H. Barnum. Delaware-John A. Nicholson. Florida-Charles M. Hamilton. Georgia-J. W. Clift, Nelson Tift, William P. Edwards, Samuel F. Gove, Charles H. Prince, John H. Christy, P. M. B. Young. Illinois-Norman B. Judd, John F. Farnsworth, Elihu B. Washburne, Abner C. Harding, Ebon C. Ingersoll, Burton C. Cook, Henry P. H. Bromwell, Shelby M. Cullom, Lewis W. Ross, Albert G. Burr, Samuel S. Marshall, Jehu Baker, Green B. Raum; at large, John A. Logan. Indiana-William E. Niblack, Michael C. Kerr, Morton C. Hunter, William S. Holman, George W. Julian, John Coburn, Henry D. Washburn, Godlove S. Orth, Schuyler Colfax, William Williams, John P. C. Shanks. Iowa-James F. Wilson, Hiram Price, William B. Allison, William Loughridge, Granville M. Dodge, Asahel W. Hubbard. Benjamin Wade, of Ohio, was President pro tem. of the Senate, and Schuyler Colfax, of Indiana, Speaker of the House. In the Senate, on December 4th, the following resolution was considered: Louisiana-J. Hale Sypher, (vacancy) Joseph P. Newsham, Michael Vidal, W. Jasper Blackburn. Maine-John Lynch, Sidney Perham, James G. Blaine, John A. Peters, Frederick A. Pike. Maryland - Hiram McCullough, Stevenson Archer, Charles E. Phelps, Francis Thomas, Frederick Stone. Massachusetts-Thomas D. Eliot, Oakes Ames, Ginery Twichell, Samuel Hooper, Benjamin F. Butler, Nathaniel P. Banks, George S. Boutwell, John D. Baldwin, William B. Washburn, Henry L. Dawes. Michigan-Fernando C. Beaman, Charles Upson, Austin Blair, Thomas W. Ferry, Rowland E. Trowbridge, John F. Driggs. Minnesota William Windom, Ignatius Donnelly. Missouri-William A. Pile, Carman A. Newcomb, James R. McCormick, Joseph J. Gravelly, Joseph W. McClurg, Robert T. Van Horn, Benjamin F. Loan, John F. Benjamin, George W. Anderson." Nebraska-John Taffe. Nevada-Delos R. Ashley. New Hampshire-Jacob H. Ela, Aaron F. Stevens, Jacob Benton. New Jersey-William Moore, Charles Haight, Charles Sitgreaves, John Hill, George A. Halsey. New York-Stephen Taber, Demas Barnes, William E. Robinson, John Fox, John Morrissey, Thomas E. Stewart, John W. Chanler, James Brooks, Fernando Wood, William H. Robertson, Charles H. Van Wyck, John H. Ketcham, Thomas Cornell, John V. L. Pruyn, John A. Griswold, Orange Ferris, Calvin T. Hulburd, James M. Marvin, William C. Fields, Addison H. Laflin, Alexander H. Bailey, John C. Churchill, Dennis McCarthy, Theodore M. Pomeroy, William H. Kelsey, William S. Lincoln, Hamilton Ward, Lewis Selye, Burt Van Horn, James M. Humphrey, Henry Van Aernam. North Carolina-J. R. French, David Heaton, O. H. Dockery, J. T. Dewees, Israel G. Leash, Nathaniel Boyden, A. H. Jones. Ohio-Benjamin Eggleston, Samuel F. Carey, Robert C. Schenck, William Lawrence, William Mungen, Reader W. Clarke, Samuel Shellabarger, John Beatty, Ralph P. Buckland, James M. Ashley, John T. Wilson, Philadelph Van Trump, Columbus Delano, Martin Welker, Tobias A. Plants, John A. Bingham, Ephraim R. Eckley, Rufus P. Spalding, James A. Garfield. Oregon-Rufus Mallory. Pennsylvania - Samuel J. Randall, Charles O'Neill, Leonard Myers, William D. Kelley, Caleb N. Taylor, Benjamin M. Boyer, John M. Broomall, J. Lawrence Getz, Thaddeus Stevens, Henry L. Cake, Daniel M. Van Auken, George W. Woodward, Ulysses Mercur, George F. Miller, Adam J. Glossbrenner, William H. Koontz, Daniel J. Morrell, Stephen F. Wilson, Glenni W. Scofield, Darwin A. Finney, John Covode, James K. Moorhead, Thomas Williams, George V. Lawrence. Rhode Island-Thomas A. Jenckes, Nathan F. Dixon. South Carolina-B. F. Whittemore, C. C. Bowen, Simon Corley, James H. Goss, J. P. M. Epping, E. H. Dickson. Tennessee-Robert R. Butler, Horace Maynard, William B. Stokes, James Mullins, John Trimble, Samuel M. Arnell, Isaac R. Hawkins, David A. Nunn. Vermont-Frederick E. Woodbridge, Luke P. Poland, Worthington C. Smith. West Virginia-Chester D. Hubbard, Bethuel M. Kitchen, Daniel Polslev. Wisconsin-Halbert E. Paine, Benjamin F. Hopkins, Amasa Cobb, Charles A. Eldridge, Philetus Sawyer, Cadwalader C. Washburn. MississippiTexasVirginia Not admitted at this session. Delegates from the Territories. Arizona-Coles Bashford. Resolved, That the message of the President of the United States, with the reports of the heads of departments, without the accompanying documents, be printed, and that three thousand additional copies be printed for the use of the Senate. Mr. Sumner, of Massachusetts, said: "I move to strike out the words relating to the President's message, so that if there are extra copies printed they may be the reports of the departments, to which, so far as I know, there is no objection. There is really a reason, independent of economy, why we should not circulate extra copies of the President's message. It has already been characterized as a libel; unquestionably it is a libel; it is an incendiary document, calculated to stimulate the rebellion once more and to provoke civil war. It is a direct appeal to the worst passions and the worst prejudices of those rebels who, being subdued on the battle-field, still resist through the aid of the President of the United States. It is the evidence of a direct coalition between the President and the former rebels. If Jefferson Davis were President of the United States, he could not send to this chamber a message different in character. I have often said that Andrew Johnson was the successor of Jefferson Davis, and this message is a complete confirmation of all that I have heretofore said. I hope the Senate will not put its hands in the public Treasury in order to circulate over the country a document which is so offensive to Congress, and which, just in proportion to its influence, is calculated to arouse the worst sentiments throughout the rebel States." Mr. Wilson, of Massachusetts, said: "I go quite as far as any one in condemnation of the tone, temper, and doctrines of the message, but I think we are not justified in departing from the ordinary practice of this body. The message is an assault of the President of the United States upon the Congress of the United States for attempting by legislation to take the governments of the rebel States out of the control of traitors into whose keeping he had placed these governments. The writer of this message seems to have forgotten altogether the action of the President in 1865, and as the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Edmunds) suggests to me, he seems almost to have forgotten that we ever had any rebellion at all. The message remembers to forget that President Johnson in the summer and autumn of 1865 assumed and exercised constitutional powers for the exercise of which he now condemns the legislative branch of the Government. If the President's reconstruction policy was within the provisions of the Constitution, surely the reconstruction policy of Congress is within the provisions of the Constitution. If the President without the authority of law could fix the terms and conditions for the reconstruction of the rebel States, surely Congress, the law-making power of the Government, could determine the terms and conditions of reconstruction." Mr. Dixon, of Connecticut, followed, saying: "Mr. President, if it were possible to suppress the message entirely, to keep it out of sight, to prevent its being read by the American people, I should not be surprised at the motion which has been made. Standing here now as the advocate of a system of measures condemned by the people, confessedly in a minority, as those Senators now are in a minority of the people of the United States, as shown by their latest verdict, rebuked, repudiated by the people-my friend (Mr. Conness) smiles; I shall soon come to his case-I am not surprised in the least that there should be a desire to suppress arguments and information of the character contained in this message. If the question were only whether it should be printed, I should be willing to leave it where the Senator from Massachusetts who last spoke has left it, for the Senate to decide. I think that entirely immaterial. The public have read it; it has been spread before the people of the United States, and I should be satisfied to leave it there if the other Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from Michigan had not denounced the document in language which, to my mind, I will not say is improper in this body-that is not for me to say-but denounced it in a manner which I think it does not deserve. "Now, what have they said? The Senator from Michigan (Mr. Howard) begins by saying it is a libel, and I think he said an insult to the Congress of the United States. The Senator from Massachusetts said he had often said, had been in the habit of saying, that the President of the United States was a traitor equally guilty with Jefferson Davis." Mr. Sumner: "That is not what I said. I said the successor of Jefferson Davis." Mr. Dixon: "The successor of Jefferson Davis-how? In his principles, of course. The Senator does not claim that he is the successor in office. He says the President is the successor of Jefferson Davis and equally guilty, and still he complains that the President has been guilty of a libel. It struck me at the time, that, if there was any competition of vehement language between the President and that Senator it would be very easy to decide who in vituperation had the advantage. He who denounces the President as a traitor and the successor of Jefferson Davis is not the man to complain of any severity of language on the part of the President of the United States. "Now, sir, what is this message? Is it deserving of the severe attacks which have been made upon it by these two distinguished Senators? Is it a libel? Is it violent in language? Does it show, as the Senator from Massachusetts says, bad temper? In the first place, what is the duty of the President? The Constitution says that he shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the Union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient. It has always been customary for the President of the United States at the opening of a session of Congress to send in a formal message, to give that information annually, or at each session, with that formality and solemnity which attaches to this document. He has now done it. I con fess that I can see nothing of violence or ill temper, much less of a libellous character, in this message. He expresses strong opinionswith regard to what? With regard to the constitutionality of certain laws now on the statute-book." After further debate, the motion of Mr. Sumner to amend was rejected by the following vote: YEAS-Messrs. Cameron, Chandler, Howard, Howe, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Sumner, Thayer, and Wade-9. NAYS-Messrs. Anthony, Buckalew, Cole, Conkling, Conness, Corbett, Cragin, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Drake, Edmunds, Ferry, Fessenden, Freling huysen, Grimes, Harlan, Henderson, Hendricks, Johnson, Morgan, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Norton, Patterson of New Hampshire, Patterson of Tennessee, Ross, Sherman, Stewart, Tipton, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Willey, Williams, and Wilson-36. ABSENT-Messrs. Bayard, Cattell, Fowler, Guthrie, Nye, Saulsbury, Sprague, and Yates-8. On December 18th the President sent to both Houses of Congress the following message: Gentlemen of the Senate and of the House of Representatives: An official copy of the order issued by Major-General Winfield S. Hancock, commander of the fifth military district, dated headquarters in New Orleans, Louisiana, on the 29th day of November, has reached me through the regular channels of the War Department, and I herewith communicate it to Congress for such action as may seem to be proper in view of all the circumstances. It will be perceived that General Hancock announces that he will make the law the rule of his conduct; that he will uphold the courts and other civil authorities in the performance of their proper duties; and that he will use his military power only to preserve the peace and enforce the law. He declares very explicitly that the sacred right of the trial by jury and the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be crushed out or trodden under foot. He goes further, and, in one comprehensive sentence, asserts that the principles of American liberty are still the inheritance of this people, and ever should be. When a great soldier with unrestricted power in his hands to oppress his fellow-men voluntarily foregoes the chance of gratifying his selfish ambition and devotes himself to the duty of building up the liberties and strengthening the laws of his country, he presents an example of the highest public virtue that human nature is capable of practising. The strongest claim of Washington to be "first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen," is founded on the great fact that in all his illustrious career he scrupulously abstained from violating the legal and constitutional rights of his fellow-citizens. When he surrendered his commission to Congress the President of that body spoke his highest praise in saying that he had "always regarded the rights of the civil authorities through all dangers and disasters." Whenever power above the law courted his acceptance, he calmly put the temptation aside. By such magnanimous acts of forbearance he won the universal admiration of mankind, and left a name which has no rival in the history of the world. I am far from saying that General Hancock is the only officer of the American Army who is influenced of them are faithfully devoted to the principles for by the example of Washington. Doubtless thousands which the men of the Revolution laid down their lives. But the distinguished honor belongs to him of being the first officer in high command south of the Potomac, since the close of the civil war, who has given utterance to these noble sentiments in the form of a military order. I respectfully suggest to Congress that some public recognition of General Hancock's patriotic conduct is due, if not to him, to the friends of law and justice such a time, it is but fit that the dignity should be throughout the country. Of such an act as his, at vindicated and the virtue proclaimed, so that its value as an example may not be lost to the nation. ANDREW JOHNSON. WASHINGTON, D. C., December 18, 1867. In the Senate, on December 5th, Mr. Sumner, of Massachusetts, moved to take up the bill for the further security of equal rights in the District of Columbia. It provided that the word "white," wherever it occurred in the laws relating to the District of Columbia, or in the charter or ordinances of the cities of Washington or Georgetown, and operated as a limitation on the right of any elector of the District, or of either of those cities, to hold any office, or to be selected and to serve as a juror, should be repealed, and that it should be unlawful for any person or officer to enforce, or attempt to enforce, that limitation after the passage of the act. Mr. Sumner said: "This bill is in the precise terms of a bill that passed both Houses of Congress on the last day of the last meeting in July, and which, after being duly engrossed, was sent to the President. It was not returned by him before the rising of Congress, and I introduced this precise copy on the first day of our late meeting. At the suggestion of the Senator from Illinois, I forebore calling it up for consideration in order to await the expiration of eleven consecutive days of meeting of the Senate, to see if within that time the bill would be returned to Congress with or without his objections. It was not returned. As that act failed for the want of the President's signature, I propose now simply to review what was done at the last session, and to present the act again for the signature of the President." The bill was reported without amendment, ordered to be engrossed for a reading, and read. Mr. Hendricks, of Indiana, said: "Mr. President, in voting upon laws for the District of Columbia, I have always felt it obligatory upon me to vote for such laws as I would be willing to vote for my own people at home for their government. The Congress of the United States, under the Constitution, enacts the laws for this District; but inasmuch as the people of the District have no voice in our selection, I think we ought only to vote for such laws as we know to be agreeable to our own folks, to say the least of it. If the people of a State have rejected a proposition by a decided majority, and we know that the white population of the District agree with the people of that State, I do not well see how a Senator can impose such a law upon the people of the District. "It is not my purpose to discuss the question, but simply to call attention to the fact that the expression of opinion in the Northern States in the recent elections has been very emphatic against this policy. Notwithstanding the bill passed at the last session, it is not necessary that we should now pass it, for the pleasure of the people had not then been so emphatically made known as it now has been." Mr. Johnson, of Maryland, followed, saying: "But the objections to the measure upon your table, sir, in my view, are much stronger than those which were applicable to the other question of granting them the right of suffrage. From the consequences of the exercise of that right there is comparatively, as far as the general public is concerned, little to be apprehended. The large numerical majority of white people in the United States is perhaps a security against any serious disadvantage which might happen to the country at large. But that is not the case as far as concerns the measure upon your table. In that we and all our constituents of the white race have a very direct interest. We are to be tried civilly and criminally, we and our constituents, if we are charged with having violated any right, private or public; and the question for the Senate to decide is whether we are willing to have ourselves tried by a jury of black men for the most part just emerged from slavery, without the capacity absolutely necessary to a faithful and intelligent discharge of that duty. And it is more especially important in relation to criminal cases, because in cases of that description the jury may, in the exercise of its power, decide conclusively for itself, disregarding the opinion of the court; and thus our citizens and ourselves may be subjected to a judgment over which there is no revising power, practically pronounced by twelve igno rant black men. "But that is not all. The number of the black race in this District is very large and promises to become larger. It may be able to elect out of its own numbers to every office, judicial or otherwise, that is not now to be filled by the Executive with the consent of the Senate. We may give them the authority to elect their magistrates; we may give them the authority to elect their judges; there is nothing to prevent it; and then we should be placed in the condition of having a tribunal to decide upon our rights, civil and criminal, constituted of persons of that race alone. Now, for one, although, as I said in the beginning, I would secure them in the possession of every right which a man has the authority to claim as a right, I am against giving to them a privilege which may be exercised to the detriment of the rest of the public, and which is not at all necessary to the vindication of all of their own rights." Mr. Pomeroy, of Kansas, in reply, said: "Mr. President, I only wish to remark that if what has been said be true, as I think it is, that the colored people are very numerous in this District, it is worthy of consideration that they, too, have rights. They are to be tried by somebody, and it may be quite as objectionable to them to have their rights adjudicated by twelve ignorant white men as it is for white men to have their rights adjudicated by twelve ignorant black men. If this argument is good for any thing as against the negro, it is equally so as against the white man, because intelligence, loyalty, or patriotism, is not confined in this District, nor anywhere, to any class or any color. If a Senator is in favor of giving to this class of persons all the rights that are given to white men, then this is one of the rights certainly to be given. There is no State in the Union where a man has the right to be an elector, where he has a right to vote, that he cannot be voted for. In the nature of the case the man who carries the ballot, in all the States of this Union outside of this District, has the right himself to be elected. This is one of the facts that stare us in the face, that under our own legislation we have made electors of a class, and yet they are not allowed to hold office themselves. This bill remedies that defect." The bill was subsequently passed by the following vote: YEAS-Messrs. Anthony, Cameron, Cattell, Chandler, Conkling, Corbett, Cragin, Drake, Edmunds, Ferry, Fessenden, Fowler, Harlan, Henderson, Howard, Howe, Morgan, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Ramsey, Ross, Sherman, Stewart, Sumner, Thayer, Tipton, Trumbull, Wade, Willey, Williams, and Wilson-32. NAYS-Messrs. Buckalew, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Hendricks, Johnson, Norton, and Patterson of Ten nessee-8. ABSENT-Messrs. Bayard, Cole, Conness, Frelinghuysen, Grimes, Guthrie, Nye, Patterson of New Hampshire, Pomeroy, Saulsbury, Sprague, Van Winkle, and Yates-13. On December 9th, the bill was passed in the House, without debate, by the following vote: YEAS-Messrs. Allison, Ames, Arnell, James M. Ashley, Bailey, Baker, Baldwin, Banks, Beaman, Benjamin, Benton, Bingham, Blaine, Boutwell, Bromwell, Broomall, Buckland, Butler, Churchill, Reader Dixon, Dodge, Donnelly, Driggs, Eckley, Eggleston, W. Clarke, Cobb, Coburn, Cook, Cullom, Dawes, Ela, Eliot, Farnsworth, Ferriss, Ferry, Fields, Garfield, Halsey, Hamilton, Harding, Hawkins, Holman, Hooper, Hopkins, Chester D. Hubbard, Hulburd, Hunter, Ingersoll, Jenckes, Judd, Julian, Kelley, Kelsey, Ketcham, Koontz, Laflin, William Lawrence, Lincoln, Logan, Loughridge, Lynch, Maynard, McClurg, Mercur, Moorhead, Mullins, Myers, Newcomb, Nunn, O'Neill, Orth, Paine, Perham, Peters, Pike, Plants, Poland, Polsley, Price, Robertson, Sawyer, Stevens, Thaddeus Stevens, Stewart, Stokes, Thomas, Schenck, Shanks, Smith, Starkweather, Aaron F. Trimble, Trowbridge, Upson, Van Aernam, Robert T. Van Horn, Cadwalader C. Washburn, Henry D. Washburn, William B. Washburn, Welker, Thomas Williams, William Williams, James F. Wilson, John T. Wilson, and Windom-105. NAYS-Messrs. Adams, Archer, Axtell, Barnes, Beck, Boyer, Brooks, Burr, Chanler, Eldridge, Getz, Glossbrenner, Golladay, Grover, Haight, Richard D. Hubbard, Humphrey, Johnson, Jones, Kerr, Knott, Mallory, Marshall, Morgan, Mungen, Niblack, Nicholson, Phelps, Pruyn, Randall, Robinson, Ross, Sitgreaves, Taber, Van Auken, Van Trump, Wood, and Woodward-38. NOT VOTING-Messrs. Anderson, Delos R. Ashley, Barnum, Blair, Cake, Cary, Sidney Clarke, Cornell, Covode, Finney, Fox, Gravelly, Griswold, Hill, Higby, Hotchkiss, Asahel W. Hubbard, Kitchen, George V. Lawrence, Loan, Marvin, McCarthy, MeCullough, Miller, Moore, Morrell, Morrissey, Pile, Pomeroy, Raum, Scofield, Selye, Shellabarger, Spalding, Stone, Taffe, Taylor, Twichell, Burt Van Horn, Van Wyck, Ward, Elihu B. Washburne, Stephen F. Wilson, and Woodbridge-44. In the Senate, on January 8th, Mr. Edmunds, of Vermont, offered the following resolution: Whereas Senate bill No. 141, entitled "An act for the further security of equal rights in the District of Columbia," having at this present session passed both Houses of Congress, was afterward, on the 11th day of December, 1867, duly presented to the President of the United States for his approval and signature; and whereas more than ten days, exclusive of Sundays, have since elapsed in this session without said bill having been returned either approved or disapproved: Therefore, Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to inform the Senate whether said bill has been delivered to and received by the Secretary of State as provided by the second section of the act of the 27th day of July, 1789. The resolution was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to. On January 23d, the President sent the following message to the Senate: To the Senate of the United States: I have received the following preamble and resolution, adopted by the Senate on the 8th instant: As the act which the resolution mentions has no relevancy to the subject under inquiry, it is presumed that it was the intention of the Senate to refer to the law of the 15th September, 1789, the second section of which prescribes That whenever a bill, order, resolution, or vote of the Senate and House of Representatives, having been approved and signed by the President of the United States, or not having been returned by him with his objections, shall become a law or take effect, it shall forthwith thereafter be received by the said Secretary from the President; and whenever a bill, order, resolution, or vote shall be returned by the President, with his objections, and shall, on being reconsidered, be agreed to, be passed, and be approved by two-thirds of both Houses of Congress, and thereby become a law or take effect, it shall, in such case, be received by the said Secretary from the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives, in whichsoever House it shall last have been so approved. Inasmuch as the bill for the further security of equal rights in the District of Columbia" has not become a law in either of the modes designated in the section above quoted, it has not been delivered to the Secretary of State for record and promulgation. The Constitution expressly declares that "if any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law in like manner as if he has signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law." As stated in the preamble to the resolution, the bill to which it refers was presented for my approval on the 11th day of December, 1867. On the 20th of the same month, and before the expiration of the ten days after the presentation of the bill to the President, the two Houses, in accordance with a concurrent resolution adopted on the 3d of December, adjourned until the 6th of January, 1868. Congress by their adjournment thus prevented the return of the bill within the time prescribed by the Constitution, and it was therefore left in the precise condition in which that instrument positively delares a bill "shall not be a law." If the adjournment in December did not cause the failure of this bill because not such an adjournment as is contemplated by the Constitution in the clause which I have cited, it must follow that such was the nature of the adjournments during the past year, on the 30th day of March until the first Wednesday in July, and from the 20th of July until the 21st of November. Other bills will, therefore, be affected by the decision which may be rendered in this case, among them one having the same title as that named in the resolution, and containing similar provisions, which, passed by both Houses in the month of July last, failed to become a law by reason of the adjournhad been allowed the Executive. ment of Congress before ten days for its consideration ANDREW JOHNSON. WASHINGTON, January 23, 1868. Mr. Edmunds, of Vermont, said: "I move that that communication be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and on its reference I have simply a word to say. It is perfectly manifest to me, from an examination that I have made of the subject since the resolution calling for that information was introduced, that the construction which the President puts upon the Constitution is altogether wrong, and that the transaction of public business would be vastly impeded if Congress were to acquiesce in such a construction; and I hope that we shall be able to adopt some measures which will put all the departments of the Government upon a common understanding upon that subject. Of course, this is in no sense a party question. Although it happens to arise now upon a bill which passed upon a division of parties, after all, the question has no political idea involved in it whatever; and I shall hope, therefore, when the matter comes to be considered in committee and reported upon, that we may consider it in a spirit which has no connection with and no incitement from the fact that this particular bill happens to be the subject of a difference of opinion. same question exactly arose in the State of New Hampshire in 1863, under a constitution which, like most of our constitutions, contains the same provision, as was stated the other day by the honorable Senator from Maryland. I have It was an examined the opinion in that case. opinion pronounced by the court at the request of the Legislature of that State, under a provision of their constitution and laws for obtaining such opinions. The subject is carefully and elaborately discussed, evidently without any feeling about it, and I think any gentleman who will read that opinion, to be found in the forty-fifth volume, I think, of New-Hampshire Reports, cannot fail to be satisfied that this construction of the Constitution now held by the Executive is altogether erroneous, and would in practice lead to very serious inconveniences." The Mr. Johnson, of Maryland, said: "I am inclined to concur with the honorable member from Vermont. It is a question that I have |
