“_Resolved_, That Benjamin Stark, a Senator from Oregon,
who has been found by a committee of this body to be
disloyal to the Government of the United States, be, and
the same is hereby, expelled from the Senate.”
June 5th, Mr. Sumner moved that the Senate proceed with the
consideration of this resolution, and explained it briefly.
MR. PRESIDENT,--The Senate will observe that the resolution declares
that the Senator from Oregon has been found by a Committee of the
Senate to be disloyal. Now, Sir, I have no desire to discuss the facts
of this case. But, in order to exhibit the urgency of this question, it
is my duty to exhibit the conclusions of the Committee, set forth in
their Report, as follows.
“1st. That for many months prior to the 21st November, 1861,
and up to that time, the said Stark was an ardent advocate of
the cause of the rebellious States.
“2d. That, after the formation of the Constitution of the
Confederate States, he openly declared his admiration for it,
and advocated the absorption of the loyal States of the Union
into the Southern Confederacy, under that Constitution, as the
only means of peace, warmly avowing his sympathies with the
South.
“3d. That the Senator from Oregon is disloyal to the Government
of the United States.”
Of these propositions the first two had the sanction of the Senator
from Virginia [Mr. WILLEY], while all three had the sanction of the
rest of the Committee, being the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr.
CLARK], the Senator from Indiana [Mr. WRIGHT], the Senator from
Michigan [Mr. HOWARD], and the Senator from Ohio [Mr. SHERMAN]. Thus,
in a Special Committee of five, raised expressly to consider this
case, raised, too, after protracted discussion in the Senate, four of
the Committee united in all the conclusions of the Report, and the
dissenting member united in the first two conclusions. And this Report
is, if possible, entitled to additional consideration, when it is known
that the Senator from Oregon himself appeared before the Committee. On
these accounts I accept the Report, and do not wish to go into it or
behind it. It is with me the solemn verdict of a jury duly impanelled
for the trial of a cause.
But if the Committee is the jury, the Senate is the court; and it
remains that judgment should be entered.
I hear a voice saying that we must not take time for this question.
Pray, Sir, what time is needed? The time has been already taken. The
hearing has been had, the verdict is rendered.
Pray, why not take time? We are engaged in war to put down disloyalty.
For this we set armies in the field, and contend in battle with our
own fellow-citizens. For this we incur untold debts. For this we
are preparing to incur untold taxation. Sir, all this is simply to
put down disloyalty. And yet, when a committee of this body, after
careful inquiry, solemnly declares a Senator disloyal to the National
Government, we are told that there is no time to consider the question.
Sir, I am against disloyalty, wherever it shows itself, whether in
belligerent States, sheltered and strengthened by numbers, or sitting
here, with all the privileges of this Chamber. Others will do as they
please; but I cannot remain silent, while disloyalty, already exposed
by our own Committee, is allowed a seat in our councils, open and
secret. In not acting, you will discredit the Report of the Committee,
or show that the Senate is indifferent to the character of its members.
I will have no part in any such thing.
The Senate refused to consider the resolution.
June 6th, Mr. Sumner again moved to proceed with the
resolution, urging, that, with the Report of the Committee on
the table affirming his disloyalty, it was the duty of the
Senate to act promptly.
The question, being taken by yeas and nays, resulted, yeas 16,
nays 21. So the motion was not agreed to.