order from the rebel service was a complete defence." Mr. Hendricks: "I am not familiar with the case referred to by the Senator from Massachusetts. If the judge to whom he refers showed partiality, or that he was governed by corrupt motives, I certainly have no apology or defence to make for him. But I had not heard of any refusals by State judges to allow transfers of causes where the cases were properly presented. I know that in the State of Indiana, as far as my practice has extended, there has been no occasion to complain. If a judge has acted in Kentucky as the Senator from Massachusetts understands, then the remedy against him is by impeachment, not by a general provision that for the exercise of his judgment a judicial officer shall be liable to suit and to penalties." very different thing from the application we "As my honorable friend from California Mr. Williams, of Oregon, said: "I understand that it has been repeatedly decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, so that the question now is regarded as finally settled, that where, in a State court, a party sued makes a defence under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, he has a right to have that cause removed at any time during its progress from the State court to a court of the United States, and there have the questions involved adjudicated. I think there can be no question, upon this authority, and upon other decisions of a like nature of the Supreme Court of the Uni- it up, in such case he should have a writ of ted States, as to the constitutionality of this sec- error to the Supreme Court of the United States. tion, because it is manifest that a military officer What could be plainer and wiser? If it be true in the discharge of his duty is acting under the that under the laws of the United States these law or the authority of the United States." officers are justifiable in any particular case, where is the objection to their making that defence in the State court, and, if it is not allowed, give them the right to appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States. What can be plainer than that?" Mr. Cowan, of Pennsylvania, followed, saying: "Mr. President, it might be well to inquire from whence sprang all this brood of transferring cases from the State courts to the United States courts. How did it happen that there ever was a precedent for that thing? I will try and explain that. Among other powers delegated to the United States was the power of levying taxes, imposts, duties, and so on, or in other words, to enforce a revenue system. In early times in this country there was no act of Congress taking cognizance of that revenue system and providing for the decision of cases under it; and hence, perhaps, thirty-five or thirty-six year ago, about 1830, an act of Congress was passed which provided that whenever a revenue officer in the execution of his duty collecting the revenue shall be involved in lawsuits with anybody about that subject, those cases should be transferred to the courts of the United States in order that he might be tried there, because the cases arose not under State laws, but under the laws of the United States. That was right and proper. Where the officer was acting under the laws of the United States, where he was executing the laws of the United States, and where the whole subject-matter was within the jurisdiction of the United States, it was eminently proper that the cause should be carried into the United States courts; but that is a Mr. Howard, of Michigan, in support of the bill, said: "Mr. President, a very strenuous opposition is made to the fourth section of the bill. The honorable Senator from Delaware has moved to strike it out. Another Senator has moved an amendment to that amendment, to strike out the word 'judges' in the seventh line, so as to exempt the judges of the State courts from the damages which are contemplated in the section. I am opposed to both these amendments, and in favor of the passage of the bill with the fourth section in it, because I think that section contains a sound principle, and that without it there may be many cases in which great injustice may be done to parties who are brought into the State courts on claims of damages by owners of property taken for the purposes of the war. I see no constitutional difficulty whatever in the fourth section. Still I am aware that it comes within that long category of bills which the Senate have passed or endeavored to pass during the late war, which by certain gentlemen in this chamber have been denounced as flagrantly unconstitutional. Indeed, the honorable Senator from Delaware has . gone so far as to say to us that if he were a judge sitting for the purpose of administering justice between man and man in his own State, and this statute, if it should become a statute, should be presented to him, and should be insisted upon by way of defence, he would feel bound to hold it unconstitutional and void, and that he would proceed, notwithstanding this Federal statute, to pass a final judgment in the case which might be before him, and to enforce it. "It is not necessary for me to say that it is the duty of a judge, whether he occupy a high or an inferior position, as such to decide every question of law that may fairly be presented to his consideration. I am not aware that the law exempts any class of judges of courts from this high and solemn duty. Still, it does seem to me that if I were a State judge, and this question were presented to me in the form which he has suggested, certainly if a doubt hung over the question at all, I should feel it my duty to decide in favor of the validity of the statute, leaving the question finally to be determined by the court of dernier ressort, the Supreme Court of the United States, and such, I think, would be felt to be the duty of almost every wellinformed State tribunal. But, sir, is there any thing in this statute which is in conflict with the Constitution? And does the judicial power of the United States as delegated in the Constitution itself cover the cases which are contemplated by the section? That is the first and principal point for us to determine. If there be a delegation of power in the Constitution covering these cases, the question of its constitutionality cannot be raised upon that issue. The Constitution declares that the judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and equity arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States,' etc. Are the cases contemplated by section four cases arising under any law of the United States? What are they, and what is their character? ques "I am speaking of regular acts of war performed by inferiors in obedience to the orders of their superiors. I am not speaking of wilful and wanton trespasses committed by soldiers or officers without warrant and without order, because the bill contemplates no such cases, affords protection in no such cases. I am speaking of acts done under regular orders. Do those acts present cases coming under any law of the United States? That involves the tion whether the war itself existed in pursuance of any law of the United States. If the war itself was waged in pursuance of law, if the Congress of the United States, in providing for its prosecution, did not transcend the Constitution itself, all these acts of war were committed under a law of the United States; and the acts themselves, taken in connection with the party plaintiff and the party defendant in the State court, constitute a case at law. A case at law must have parties; there must be a fact connected with it, there must be an allegation on one side by one party against the other in re spect to which the plaintiff asks for relief or asks for judgment. That I understand to be in very brief terms a definition of a case at law. "The judicial power of the United States extends to just such cases; that is to say, it reaches them, it covers them. The judicial power of the United States may, if Congress so choose, take these cases and deal with them in any way it sees fit. If the case exists in a State court, being covered by and subject to the judicial power of the United States under the Constitution, it is competent undoubtedly for Congress to provide for the prosecution, trial, and decision of these cases in their own way. That, in brief, is all that is contemplated in this statute. But, sir, if according to the doctrine of some, if according to the teachings of a class of doctors who have been too numerous and whose teachings have been too fatal in this country, it is not competent for the Congress of the United States to wage war, as they say, against a State; if the acts of the United States in the prosecution of this war were according to the doctrines of those teachers, all void and of no effect; if a State ordinance of secession is to be the paramount law of the land, the Constitution of the United States to the contrary notwithstanding, then, sir, I agree that all these cases are not cases arising under any law of the United States, and therefore they cannot be removed from a State court in which they may happen to be brought. But, sir, I do not belong to that school of politics. I reject the whole theory of Mr. Calhoun and all his followers from beginning to end upon the question of the right of a State to secede, or the right of the Government of the United States to wage war for the purpose of putting down a rebellion or an insurrection. I hold all our acts to be perfectly valid, and as valid as they were necessary." The amendment of Mr. Saulsbury was rejected, and after some verbal changes the bill was passed, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Anthony, Chandler, Clark, Conness, Cragin, Doolittle, Edmunds, Foster, Henderson, Howard, Howe, Johnson, Kirkwood, Lane of Indiana, Morgan, Norton, Nye, Poland, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Wade, Willey, Williams, Wilson, and Yates-30. Sprague, Stewart, Sumner, Trumbull, Van Winkle, NAYS-Messrs. Buckalew, Guthrie, Hendricks, and Saulsbury-4. ABSENT-Messrs. Brown, Cowan, Creswell, Davis, Dixon, Fessenden, Grimes, Harris, Lane of Kansas, McDougall, Morrill, Nesmith, Riddle, Sherman, aud Wright-15. The amendments of the Senate were not approved by the House, and committees of conference were appointed, and the bill was passed, after an unimportant modification of the sixth amendment of the Senate. Subsequently in the session an amendment to this amendment was passed, which provided means for the removal of the person of the defendant, whose cause had been removed from a State court. In the House, on December 12th, Mr. Raymond, of New York, presented the credentials of persons elected in Tennessee to seats in the House, that they might come before the House. Mr. Stevens, of Pennsylvania, said: "I rise to a question of order. I do not mean to oppose the main object of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Raymond). But I hold that this is not a question of privilege. The State of Tennessee is not known to this House nor to Congress. If the gentleman will put his proposition in another shape, and not present it as a question of privilege, I will not object to it. But if he presents it as a question of privilege, I make the point of order that it is not such a question." The point of order was overruled by the Speaker. Mr. Raymond followed, saying, that his object was merely to get the papers in a position to be acted upon. The disposition which should be made of the papers was a matter of indifference to him. He moved their reference to the joint Committee of Fifteen, when appointed, which was approved. On July 19th, in the House it was resolved, by a vote of yeas 70, nays 27, to reconsider the vote by which a joint resolution relative to Tennessee had been recommitted to the Committee on Reconstruction. Mr. Bingham, of Ohio, then withdrew the motion to recommit, and offered the following substitute: Joint resolution declaring Tennessee again entitled to Sen ators and Representatives in Congress. Whereas, the State of Tennessee has in good faith ratified the article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States, proposed by the Thirty-ninth Congress to the Legislatures of the several States, and has also shown to the satisfaction of Congress, by a proper spirit of obedience in the body of her people, her return to her due allegiance to the Government, laws, and authority of the United States: Therefore, Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatires of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the State of Tennessee is hereby restored to her former proper, practical relations to the Union, and is again entitled to be represented by Senators and Representatives in Congress, duly elected and qualified, upon their taking the oaths of office required by existing laws. Mr. Boutwell, of Massachusetts, in opposition to the resolution, said: "I will state briefly the reasons why I shall vote against this proposition. I have two prominent reasons against it. I would have yielded somewhat of one of them, provided I had seen a single shadow of hope coming from the State of Tennessee itself. I find, on the examination of the constitution of Tennessee, that the voting power is confined exclusively to the white population. If Tennessee would have even yielded to allow the colored men who had been soldiers to vote; or if they had even initiated a policy which might have grown to fulness hereafter, I might have consented to the proposition. Since the proposition that is now before the House assumes to dictate terms to the State of Tennessee, and of right assumes it, we also have the power to insist that that State shall recognize the great principle of which I have spoken. 66 My second objection to this proposition is that the amendment of the Constitution submitted by Congress to the Legislatures of the several States, although ratified by the Legislature of the State of Tennessee, has not become a portion of the Constitution of the United States. And since it has not become a part of the Constitution, then the restrictions that are contained within it have no application upon that State whatever. And Tennessee, if admitted at this session of Congress, will be admitted with the same number of Representatives that the State had when the rebellion commenced. We will thus find the representation of the several States very unequal, and it seems to me that the people of the free North will express not only dissatisfaction but indignation at such a proposition. I think there certainly should have been a restriction here, to the effect that before the proposed amendment becomes a part of the Constitution of the United States, Tennessee shall not be entitled to any more representation than she would be were the amendment in full operation and effect. I have briefly stated the two principal objections with me to the adoption of this resolution, and will not occupy more time of the House." Mr. Bingham, of Ohio, said, in reply: "Mr. Speaker, Tennessee to-day is as republican as Massachusetts on the principle that the majority of the law-abiding citizens of a State who have not forfeited their privileges by treason have the right to control its political power. That is the primal principle of American institutions, and that is the principle which the gentleman from Massachusetts comes here to-day to repudiate. "The restoration of the State of Tennessee, in the mode proposed, to her proper relations in the Union is no surrender of that principle, unless you set up here the right of the rebels lately in arms to govern the loyal people, the rebels whom you undertake to disfranchise by the constitutional amendment, and which amendment I trust in God the American people will ratify and thereby disfranchise those who compassed the nation's life and filled the land with the graves of the nation's defenders. If the rebels are to be excluded from political power, then, sir, the men who speak this day from Tennessee are the majority, overwhelmingly the majority of its free population, black and white included. "But, says the gentleman, they exclude from the elective franchise loyal black men who bore arms for the defence of the Republic. I admit it. So does Ohio, so does Pennsylvania, and so, also, do a majority of the States of the Union. Is that any reason, sir, that Tennessee should be denied representation in this House? It would be better if justice, equal and exact justice, were established in every State." The resolution was finally passed by the fol- United States abolishing slavery; also the amend lowing vote: ment proposed by the Thirty-ninth Congress, and has done other acts proclaiming and denoting loyalty: Therefore, YEAS-Messrs. Allison, Ames, Ancona, Anderson, Delos R. Ashley, James M. Ashley, Baker, Banks, Baxter, Bidwell, Bingham, Boyer, Bromwell, Buckland, Bundy, Reader W. Clark, Sidney Clarke, Cobb, Conkling, Davis, Dawes, Dawson, Defrees, Delano, Deming, Donnelly, Driggs, Eckley, Eggleston, Eldridge, Farnsworth, Farquhar, Ferry, Finck, Garfield, Glossbrenner, Aaron Harding, Abner C. Harding, Hart, Hogan, Holmes, Hooper, Hotchkiss, Asahel W. Hubbard, Chester D. Hubbard, John H. Hubbard, James R. Hubbell, Hulburd, Humphrey, Ingersoll, Johnson, Kasson, Kerr, Ketcham, Koontz, Kuyken. dall, Laflin, Latham, George V. Lawrence, William Lawrence, Lynch, Marston, McCullough, McRuer, Mercur, Miller, Moorhead, Morrill, Morris, Moulton, Myers, Newell, Niblack, Nicholson, Noell, O'Neill, Orth, Perham, Phelps. Pike, Plants, Price, Radford, Samuel J. Randall, William H. Randall, Raymond, Alexander H. Rice, John H. Rice, Ritter, Rogers, Rollins, Ross, Rousseau, Sawyer, Schenck, Schofield, Shellabarger, Sitgreaves, Spalding, Stevens, Strouse, Tabor, Taylor, Thayer, Francis Thomas, John L. Thomas, Thornton, Trimble, Trowbridge, Van Aernam, Burt Van Horn, Robert T. Van Horn, Ward, Warner, Henry D. Washburn, William B. Washburn, Welker, Wentworth, Whaley, James F. Wilson, Stephen F. Wilson, Windom, Woodbridge, Wright, and the Speaker-125. NAYS-Messrs. Alley, Benjamin, Boutwell, Eliot, Higby, Jenckes, Julian, Kelley, Loan, McClurg, Paine, and Williams-12. NOT VOTING-Messrs. Baldwin, Barker, Beaman, Bergen, Blaine, Blow, Brandagee, Broomall, Chanler, Cook, Cullom, Culver, Darling, Denison, Dixon, Dodge, Dumont, Goodyear, Grider, Grinnell, Griswold, Hale, Harris, Hayes, Henderson, Hill, Demas Hubbard, Edwin N. Hubbell, Jones, Kelso, Le Blond, Longyear, Marshall, Marvin, McIndoe, McKee, Patterson, Pomeroy, Shanklin, Sloan, Smith, Starr, Stillwell, Upson, Elihu B. Washburne, and Winfield -46. In the Senate, on July 21st, Mr. Trumbull, from the Judiciary Committee, reported back the joint resolution of the House relative to Tennessee, with an amendment. These amendments, with others, were fully discussed, and the Senate finally modified the resolution, as follows: Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the State of Tennessee is hereby restored to her former proper, practical relations to the Union, and is again entitled to be represented by Senators and Representatives in Congress. The next amendment of the Senate was to strike out the preamble of the House and insert in lieu thereof the following: Whereas, in the year 1861, the government of the State of Tennessee was seized upon and taken possession of by persons in hostility to the United States, and the inhabitants of said State in pursuance of an act of Congress were declared to be in a state of insurrection against the United States; and whereas said State government can only be restored to its former political relations in the Union by the consent of the law-making power of the United States; and whereas the people of said State did, on the 22d day of February, 1865, by a large popular vote, adopt and ratify a constitution of government whereby slavery was abolished, and ordinances and laws of secession and debts contracted under the same were declared void; and whereas a State government has been organized under said constitution, which has ratified the amendment to the Constitution of the The vote in the Senate on the passage of the joint resolution, as thus amended, was as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Anthony, Chandler, Clark, Con. ness, Cowan, Creswell, Doolittle, Edmunds, Foster, Hendricks, Howard, Howe, Lane, Morgan, Morrill, Nesmith, Nye, Poland, Pomeroy, Sprague, Stewart. Trumbull, Van Winkle, Wade, Willey, Williams, Wilson, and Yates-28. NAYS--Messrs. Brown, Buckalew, McDougall, and Sumner-4. ABSENT-Messrs. Cragin, Davis, Dixon, Fessenden, Grimes, Guthrie, Harris, Henderson, Johnson, Kirkwood, Norton, Ramsey, Riddle, Saulsbury, Sher man, and Wright-16. These amendments of the Senate were agreed to in the House by the following vote: YEAS-Messrs. Allison, Ames, Anderson, Delos R. Ashley, Baker, Banks, Barker, Baxter, Benjamin, Bidwell, Bingham, Boutwell, Bromwell, Broomall, Buckland, Sidney Clarke, Conkling, Defrees, Dixon, Donnelly, Driggs, Eckley, Eggleston, Eliot, Farns worth, Farquhar, Ferry, Garfield, Abner C. Harding, Hart, Hayes, Higby, Holmes, Hooper, Hotchkiss, Asahel W. Hubbard, Chester D. Hubbard, John H. Hubbard, James R. Hubbell, Hulburd, Ingersoll, Julian, Kelley, Ketcham, Koontz, Kuykendall, Laf lin, George V. Lawrence, William Lawrence, Loan, Lynch, Marston, McClurg, McRuer, Mercur, Miller. Moorhead, Morrill, Morris, Moulton, Myers, Newell, O'Neill, Orth, Paine, Perham, Plants, Price, William H. Randall, Alexander H. Rice, John H. Rice, Rollins, Sawyer, Schenck, Schofield, Shellabarger, Spalding, Stevens, John L. Thomas, Trowbridge, Van Aernam, Burt Van Horn, Robert T. Van Horn, Ward, Welker, Wentworth, Whaley, Williams, James F. Wilson, Stephen F. Wilson, Windom, and Woodbridge-93. NAYS-Messrs. Ancona, Bergen, Boyer, Dawson, Eldridge, Finck, Glossbrenner, Aaron Harding, Jenckes, Johnson, Latham, Le Blond, Marshall, Niblack, Nicholson, Radford, Samuel J. Randall, Raymond, Ritter, Ross, Shanklin, Strouse, Tabor, Taylor, Thornton, and Trimble-26. NOT VOTING-Messrs. Alley, James M. Ashley, Baldwin, Beaman, Blaine, Blow, Brandagee, Bundy, Chanler, Reader W. Clark, Cobb, Cook, Cullom, Culver, Darling, Davis, Dawes, Delano, Deming, Denison, Dodge, Dumont, Goodyear, Grider, Grin nell, Griswold, Hale, Harris, Henderson, Hill, Hogan, Jones, Kasson, Kelso, Kerr, Longyear, Marvin, Demas Hubbard, Edwin N. Hubbell, Humphrey, McCullough, McIndoe, McKee, Noell, Patterson, Phelps, Pike, Pomeroy, Rogers, Sitgreaves, Sloan, Smith, Starr, Stillwell, Thayer, Francis Thomas, Upson, Warner, Elihu B. Washburne, Henry D, Washburn, William B. Washburn, Winfield, and Wright-62. The President, on July 24th, approved the resolution, and sent the following message to the House: To the House of Representatives: The following "joint resolution, restoring Tennessee to her relations in the Union," was last evening presented for my approval: "Whereas, in the year 1861, the government of the State of Tennessee was seized upon and taken possession of by persons in hostility to the United States, and the inhabitants of said State, in pursuance of an act of Congress, were declared to be in a state of insurrection against the United States; and whereas said State government can only be restored to its former political relations in the Union by the consent of the law-making power of the United States; and whereas the people of said State did, on the 22d day of February, 1865, by a large popular vote, adopt and ratify a constitution of government whereby slavery was abolished, and all ordinances and laws of secession, and debts contracted ander the same, were declared void; and whereas a State government has been organized under said constitution, which bas ratified the amendment to the Constitution of the United States abolishing slavery; also the amendment proposed by the Thirty-ninth Congress, and has done other acts proclaiming and denoting loyalty: Therefore, "Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representafice of the United States in Congress assembled, That the State of Tennessee is hereby restored to her former proper, practical relations to the Union, and is again entitled to be represented by Senators and Representatives in Congress." The preamble simply consists of statements, some of which are assumed, while the resolution is merely a declaration of opinion. It comprises no legislation, nor does it confer any power which is binding upon the respective Houses, the Executive, or the States. It does not admit to their seats in Congress the Senators and Representatives from the State of Tennessee; for, notwithstanding the passage of the resolution, each House, in the exercise of the constitutional right to judge for itself of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its members, may, at its discretion, admit them or continue to exclude them. If a joint resolution of this kind were necessary and binding as a condition-precedent to the admission of members of Congress, it would happen, in the event of a veto by the Executive, that Senators and Representatives could only be admitted to the halls of legislation by a two-thirds vote of each of the two Houses. Among other reasons recited in the preamble for the declarations contained in the resolution, is the ratification, by the State government of Tennessee, of "the amendment to the Constitution of the United States abolishing slavery, and also the amendment proposed by the Thirty-ninth Congress." If, as is also declared in the preamble, "said State government can only be restored to its former political relatons in the Union by the consent of the law-making power of the United States," it would really seem to follow that the joint resolution which at this late day bas received the sanction of Congress, should have been passed, approved, and placed on the statutebooks before any amendment to the Constitution was submitted to the Legislature of Tennessee for ratification. Otherwise the inference is plainly deducible that while, in the opinion of Congress, the people of a State may be too strongly disloyal to be entitled to representation, they may nevertheless, during the spension of their "former proper, practical relations to the Union," have an equally potent voice with other and loyal States in propositions to amend the Constitution, upon which so essentially depend the stability, prosperity, and very existence of the nation. A brief reference to my annual message of the 4th December last will show the steps taken by the Executive for the restoration to their constitutional relations to the Union of the States that had been affected by the rebellion. Upon the cessation of active hostilities, provisional governors were apinted, conventions called, governors elected by the people, Legislatures assembled, and Senators and Representatives chosen to the Congress of the Laited States. At the same time the courts of the Cited States were reopened, the blockade removed, the custom-houses reestablished, and postal operations resumed. The amendment to the Constitution abolishing slavery forever within the limits of the country was also submitted to the States, and they were thus invited to and did participate in its ratification, thus exercising the highest functions pertaining to a State. In addition, nearly all of these States, through their conventions and Legislatures, Lad adopted and ratified constitutions "of governDent whereby slavery was abolished and all ordinances and laws of secession and debts and contracts under the same were declared void." So far, then, the political existence of the States and their rela VOL. VI.-15 tions to the Federal Government had been fully and completely recognized and acknowledged by the executive department of the Government; and the completion of the work of restoration, which had progressed so favorably, was submitted to Congress, upon which devolved all questions pertaining to the admission to their seats of the Senators and Representatives chosen from the States whose people had engaged in the rebellion. All these steps had been taken, when, on the 4th day of December, 1865, the Thirty-ninth Congress assembled. Nearly eight months have elapsed since that time; and no other plan of restoration having been proposed by Congress for the measures instituted by the Executive, it is now declared, in the joint resolution submitted for my approval, "that the State of Tennessee is hereby restored to her former proper, practical relations to the Union, and is again entitled to be represented by Senators and Representatives in Congress." Thus, after the lapse of nearly eight months, Congress proposes to pave the way to the admission to representation of one of the eleven States whose people arrayed themselves in rebellion against the constitutional authority of the Federal Government. Earnestly desiring to remove every cause of further delay, whether real or imaginary, on the part of Congress to the admission to seats of loyal Senators and Representatives from the State of Tennessee, I have, notwithstanding the anomalous character of this proceeding, affixed my signature to the resolution. My approval, however, is not to be construed as an acknowledgment of the right of Congress to pass laws preliminary to the admission of duly qualified representatives from any of the States. Neither is it to be considered as committing me to all the statements made in the preamble, some of which are, in my opinion, without foundation in fact, especially the assertion that the State of Tennessee has ratified the amendment to the Constitution of the United States proposed by the Thirty-ninth Congress. No official notice of such ratification has been received by the Executive or filed in the Department of State; on the contrary, unofficial information from most reliable sources induces the belief that the amendment has not yet been constitutionally sanctioned by the Legislature of Tennessee. The right of each House, under the Constitution, to judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its own members is undoubted, and my approval or disapproval of the resolution could not in the slightest degree increase or diminish the authority in this respect conferred upon the two branches of Congress. In conclusion, I cannot too earnestly repeat my recommendation for the admission of Tennessee, and all other States, to a fair and equal participation in national legislation when they present themselves in the persons of loyal Senators and Representatives, who can comply with all the requirements of the Constitution and the laws. By this means harmony and reconciliation will be effected, the practical relations of all the States to the Federal Government reestablished, and the work of restoration, inaugurated upon the termination of the war, successfully completed. ANDREW JOHNSON. WASHINGTON, D. C., July 24, 1866. The credentials of the Representatives from Tennessee were then withdrawn from the Reconstruction Committee by the House and referred to the Committee on Elections, who reported the same to be in conformity to law, and the gentlemen were sworn in. In the Senate, on March 22d, Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, from the Committee on the Judiciary, made a report on the protest of several |