| PREVIOUS | NEXT | NEW SEARCH |
A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774-1875
Journal of the Confederate Congress --TWENTY-SEVENTH DAY--WEDNESDAY, September 17, 1862.
OPEN SESSION.
The House met pursuant to adjournment, and was opened with prayer by Rev. Dr. Doggett.
Mr. Curry offered the following resolution, to wit:
The President having recommended that the eighteenth day of the month be set apart as a day of thanksgiving to Almighty God for the victories which have blessed our arms: Therefore,
Resolved, That this House, sympathizing fully and cordially with the President in the motives which prompted that recommendation, will comply with it, and when it adjourns today, will adjourn until Friday, the nineteenth of this month;
which was read and agreed to.
The Chair laid before the House a communication from the Secretary of the Treasury, inclosing a plan from the Second Auditor for the payment of soldiers' claims; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
The Chair also presented a memorial from sundry officers of the Navy in relation to promotions; which was referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs, without being read.
The Chair also presented the memorial of Richard A. Pate, praying a change of the sequestration act; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, without being read.
The Chair also presented the memorial of G. N. Sanders, praying compensation for the use of improvements in the making of shells; which was referred to the Committee on Claims, without being read.
Mr. Garnett moved that from and after to-day the hour of meeting
Page 391 | Page image
of this House shall be 11 o'clock a. m., and called the question; which was seconded, and the motion was agreed to.
Mr. Garnett also offered
A resolution that the President be requested to inform this House what disposition is made of negroes captured by the Army, and whether any general orders have been issued to facilitate their restoration to their owners;
which was read and agreed to.
Mr. Russell introduced
A bill to amend the act to authorize payment to be made for certain horses purchased for the Army by Col. A. W. McDonald, approved August 21, 1861;
which was read the first and second times, and the rules being suspended, was engrossed, read a third time, and passed.
Mr. Russell moved that the bill in relation to the writ of habeas corpus be taken up and made the special order for the morning hour of Friday next, and to be continued from day to day until concluded.
Mr. Gartrell called the question; which was seconded, and the motion was lost.
Mr. Russell then moved that the bill be taken up and made the special order after the existing special orders.
Mr. Gartrell called the question; which was seconded, and the motion was agreed to.
On motion, leave of absence was granted Mr. Boteler.
Mr. Lyons offered
A resolution that the Committee on the Judiciary be instructed to report a bill for the establishment of a supreme court.
Mr. Davis moved that the resolution be laid upon the table.
The motion was lost, and the resolution was agreed to.
Mr. Smith of North Carolina, from the Committee on Elections, reported as follows, to wit:
The Committee on Elections, to whom were referred the petition of J. P. Johnson, contesting the seat of A. H. Garland, and claiming to have been elected Representative from the Third Congressional district of Arkansas, and certain other papers relating thereto, have had the same under consideration, and report:
When the evidence produced in support of the contestant's claim was before the committee at the last session of Congress, it was found to be so conflicting and unsatisfactory as to induce them to recommend the allowance of further time to the parties to prepare their respective allegations and proofs. To this end, and with a view of conforming proceedings to the provisions of the act of the Congress of the United States in reference to contested elections, they reported to the House a series of resolutions as follows:
The House concurred in the recommendation and adopted the resolutions, thus prescribing the form of proceeding to be pursued in conducting the contest.
Soon after this action on the part of the House, on the 5th day of April, contestant amended his notice and caused a copy to be delivered to the sitting member. The latter upon his return to Arkansas prepared his answer, now before the committee,
Page 392 | Page image
a copy of which he sent to the sheriff of Desha County, the residence of Mr. Johnson, with instructions to deliver the same to him. This was not done, and for his failure to do so the sheriff returned the paper with the following indorsements:
"Came to hand April 27, 1862.
"S. C. CLAYTON, Sheriff.
"Not executed on account of Jilson P. Johnson being absent from my county May 27, 1862.
"S. C. CLAYTON, Sheriff."
Further and additional evidence has been offered before the committee by both parties. That of contestant consists in transcripts from the poll books of the several precincts or places of voting in Arkansas County, deposited in the county clerk's office by the judges of election, verified by the certificate of the clerk and his official seal. These transcripts show an aggregate vote in that county of 133 for contestant and 195 for the sitting member, and an error in the returns made to the governor, the correction of which gives to contestant a plurality of 8 votes in the district.
The sitting member has taken the deposition of W. E. Morgan, clerk of the county court of Union County, for the purpose of showing a loss of 6 votes, to which he was entitled in that county. The deposition is taken without notice, and the committee do not hesitate to reject it. Its admission would not, however, change the result as dependent upon other evidence.
In their examination of the case, the committee encounter a difficulty in the mode of authenticating the transcripts and the absence of proper certificates as to the official character and attestations of the clerk. They do not profess to pursue the requirements of the act of Congress in reference to contested elections embodied in the resolution, of the House. By that act the testimony of witnesses may be taken upon ten days' notice before any Confederate "judge, chancellor, judge or justice of a court of record of any State," or "mayor, recorder, or intendant of any town or city," and when no such officers reside in the Congressional district, before "any two justices of the peace" residing therein. The magistrate or justices are empowered "to require the production of papers, and on the refusal or neglect of any person to produce and deliver up any paper or papers in his possession pertaining to said election, or to produce and deliver up certified or sworn copies of the same in case they may be official papers," he shall be liable to certain penalties, and it is then declared that
"All papers thus produced, and all certified or sworn copies of official papers shall be transmitted by said magistrate with the testimony of witnesses to the clerk of the House of Representatives."--Brightly's Digest, Elections, sec. 21.
Nor do the transcripts comply with the requirements of the act of the Congress of the United States of March 27, 1804. This act provides that
"All records and exemplifications of office books, which are or may be kept in any public office of any State, not appertaining to a court, shall be proved or admitted in any other court or office in any other State by the attestation of the keeper of the said records or books and the seal of his office thereto annexed, if there be a seal, together with a certificate of the presiding justice of the court of the county or district, as the case may be, in which such office is or may be kept, or of the governor, the secretary of state, the chancellor, or the keeper of the great seal of the State, that the said attestation is in due form and by the proper officer; and the said certificate, if given by the presiding justice of a court, shall be further authenticated by the clerk or prothonotary of the said court, who shall certify under his hand and the seal of his office that the said presiding justice is duly commissioned and qualified; or if the said certificate bc given by the governor, the secretary of state, the chancellor, or the keeper of the great seal, it shall be under the great seal of the State in which the said certificate is made."--Brightly's Digest, Evidence, sec. 10.
The transcripts have not been taken and transmitted according to the resolution of the House, nor do they come clothed with the forms of authentication prescribed by the general law.
The question then presents itself, Can the committee or the House dispense with a part of these requirements; and if so, to what extent in admitting evidence warranted by neither statute? The question is not free from difficulty, and the committee have bestowed upon it their careful consideration.
The proceedings before them are essentially judicial, determining not only political but personal rights. In this light they are evidently regarded by the act regulating contested elections and the former action of the House. As such they do not feel authorized to dispense with those safeguards which the law has thrown around evidence of this kind for the security of personal rights. They deem it more prudent to adhere to fundamental principles and to prescribed rules, and leave for the guidance of others a precedent finding its sanctions in the matured wisdom and
Page 393 | Page image
ripened experience in which these enactments had their origin. They therefore report the following resolution:
Resolved, That A. H. Garland is entitled to the seat now held by him.
The report was ordered to be printed.
Mr. Crockett, by consent, from the minority of the same committee, made a report; which is as follows, to wit:
The undersigned, members of the Committee on Elections, to whom were referred the petition of the Hon. J. P. Johnson, "claiming the seat in the House as the Representative from the Third district in the State of Arkansas, and asking that he be permitted to contest the seat of the sitting member, Hon. A. H. Garland," differing from the majority of the committee, beg leave to present this minority report.
At the last session of Congress a majority of the committee recommended the adoption of the following resolutions:
A minority of the committee also made a report and recommended the adoption of the following resolution: "Resolved, That the Honorable J. P. Johnson is duly elected Representative from the Third Congressional district of the State of Arkansas, and as such is entitled to the seat in this House as the Representative from said Third district." This resolution was rejected by a vote of--in the affirmative and--in the negative.
The House thereupon adopted the resolutions reported by the majority of the committee, which in effect postponed the case for future proof to be taken under certain rules, allowing the parties the privilege of amending their pleadings, if they so decided. It will at once be perceived by an examination of the report of the committee that they do not attempt to decide the question, which at last must control the action of the House, namely:
Did contestant or the sitting member receive a plurality of the votes cast at said election? Indeed, the intimation is pretty clear from the whole tenor of the report, in the opinion of the committee, that contestant had been elected, but had failed to show it by the highest grade of evidence of which the case was susceptible, and therefore time was granted to obtain the proof.
Immediately after this action on the part of the House, to wit, on the 5th of April, the contestant, availing himself of the privilege granted him, amended his notice, in which in precise and apt allegations he acquaints the sitting member of the grounds relied on for contesting his seat. A copy of this notice was served on defendant the same day. The sitting member failed or neglected to have a copy of his answer served on the contestant within the time prescribed by the resolution of the last session, and the notice of the contestant as originally given and as amended remain unanswered to this time. No excuse or apology was offered at the last session by the defendant for his failure to answer the original notice, unless it be found in his objection to its sufficiency.
The objection to this notice was overruled by the committee, and doubtless the defendant would have then been given an opportunity of answering had he asked leave to do so.
The committee, in their report at this session, state that the defendant "upon his return to Arkansas prepared his answer, now before the committee, a copy of which he sent to the sheriff of Desha County, the residence of Mr. Johnson, with instructions to deliver the same to him. This was not done, and for his failure to do so the sheriff returned the paper with the following indorsements:
"Came to hand April 27, 1862.
"S. C. CLAYTON, Sheriff.
"Not executed on account of Jilson P. Johnson being absent from nay county May 27, 1862.
"S. C. CLAYTON, Sheriff."
Page 394 | Page image
The impression left upon the mind from reading this part of the report would be that the contestant's absence from his county was the cause of the failure of the defendant to have his answer served, and yet the fact is we have the concurrent written testimony of both contestant and defendant that the former was at home during the entire time within which the answer was to be served. See amended petition of contestant and written statement of facts of defendant.
What the committee mean in their report by saying the answer of defendant to the amended notice is "now before the committee" we are at a loss to conjecture. If it is meant to say it is or was before the committee in the legal character of a response or answer, we must be permitted to say we did not so understand the action of the committee. Upon the contrary, we understand it as ruled out of the case for all legal purposes, other than as tending to show an effort on the part of defendant to answer in time.
The amended notice then remains unanswered and by no fault of contestant. Indeed, the defendant has not even asked permission to file his answer nunc pro tunc, but stakes his defense entirely upon the ground that contestant has failed in his proof.
The question arises, What legal effect follows from the failure to answer? The notice and answer constitute the pleadings in this case, under the act of Congress governing. Why does the law require contestant to give the sitting member notice in writing of his intention to contest the seat? Obviously that defendant may know the ground relied on, so that when he answers he may force an issue to be tried by traversing the allegations of the notice, or may confess them and set up another in avoidance. The whole office of all pleading is to form an issue, to be tried. If the defendant fails to answer, controverting the allegations of the contestant, there is no issue to try.
The well-established rule of pleading, universal in its application, is, that all material allegations must be regarded as admitted until denied. The material allegation of the notice is, that contestant received a plurality of eight votes in the district. It is not denied--must it not be taken to be true? Does not every rule of pleading known to the books, as well as every rule of logic known to the logician, require it to be regarded as established? If taken as true, what judgment shall the House, acting here as it does in a quasi judicial character, render? We insist it is compelled to decide against the right of the sitting member to the seat. This consequence must follow, unless every rule of pleading and logic is set at defiance. In deciding that the sitting member is not legally entitled to the seat, it by no means follows that the contestant is. The judgment that ousts the sitting member is one thing; the judgment that gives the seat to the contestant is essentially a different thing. Each House has the exclusive right of judging of the qualification, election, and virtues of its own members, and therefore he who claims a seat must not rely upon the weakness of the title of some other claimant, but must show he is entitled to it by affirmative proof.
In the opinion of the undersigned, the failure to answer the original and amended notice in this case must have the effect of depriving the sitting member of his seat, even in the absence of proof, but would not have the effect of giving the seat to the contestant.
It will be perceived by examination of the notice in this case that the substantive charge is that there was a mistake to the prejudice of contestant in making out the abstract of the vote of Arkansas county by the clerk, justice, and householder, that was forwarded to the governor, and upon which he acted in granting the certificate of election, which, when corrected, shows he was elected by eight votes.
To support this allegation the contestant offered in evidence copies of the poll books from each township or voting precinct of Arkansas County, certified by the clerk of said county under seal of office to be correct transcripts from the originals, as they remain on file in his office. This evidence was rejected by the committee, because in their opinion the same was improperly authenticated.
In support of their view the House is referred to the act of Congress relating to contested elections, and the act of March 27, 1804. We are at a loss to see the application of either to the case before the House. The act respecting contested elections is merely cumulative, and whilst it prescribes one mode of taking testimony in cases of contested elections, does not at all interfere with the well-established rules of evidence as recognized by the common law, or by the statutes of the several States. The statute referred to, as well as the rule laid down by the House at the last session, a lies only to the case where an answer has been served in time. Such is the express language of the statute and the resolution of last session. Indeed the statute does not provide for taking testimony where there is no answer, for the obvious reason that in the contemplation of the lawmakers no proof in such case would be required, and such we take to have been the sense of this House from the language employed in the resolution of last session. The act of March 27, 1804,
Page 395 | Page image
relates exclusively to courts, technically speaking, and provides for procuring and authenticating record evidence of one State to be used in evidence in the courts of another or sister State. Now we respectfully submit that this House is not a court, and especially it is not a court of one of the States composing this Confederacy. The statutes of Arkansas provide for the introduction as evidence of office copies from the records of one court in any other court within the State, when certified by the clerk under seal of his office. Why shall the evidence be digested here? Admit this evidence and the election of the contestant is demonstrated. With conclusive evidence before us that the contestant was elected, we can not but regard the retention of the seat by the sitting member as a flagrant disregard of the rights of the electors composing the district, as well as the rights of the contestant. Whereupon, we recommend the following as a substitute for the resolution of the committee:
Resolved, That Honorable Jilson P. Johnson is duly elected Representative from the Third Congressional district of Arkansas, and as such is entitled to his seat in this House.
The report was ordered to be printed.
The House proceeded to the consideration of the special order, which was a bill to fill up existing companies, battalions, squadrons, or regiments of the Provisional Army, etc.
And the question being on the amendment of Mr. Chrisman, to add to the end of the bill the following words, viz:
Provided, That the President is authorized to suspend the execution of this act, or the acts to which this is an amendment, or any special provision or provisions of said acts, in any locality when he believes such suspension will promote the public good; and that in such localities, and during said suspension, the President is authorized to receive troops into the Confederate service under any of the acts passed by the Confederate Congress prior to the passage of the act to further provide for the public defense, approved sixteenth April, eighteen hundred and sixty-two,
The same was agreed to.
The question then recurring on the amendment of Mr. Davis to the amendment of Mr. Bonham, which is as follows, to wit: Strike out all of the same and insert in lieu thereof the following:
That the act approved on the sixteenth day of April, eighteen hundred and sixty-two, known as "An act further to provide for the public defense," be, and the same is hereby, so enlarged and extended as to embrace all free white male citizens of the Confederate States of America between the ages of eighteen and forty-five years, not to be discharged upon attaining the age of forty-five if enrolled and mustered into service before.
Be it further enacted, That retired commissioned officers of the Confederate Army shall have the right to furnish substitutes, and that this act shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage,
Mr. McLean called for the yeas and nays;
Which were ordered,
Yeas: Barksdale, Horatio W. Bruce, Chrisman, Conrow, Dargan, Davis, De Jarnette, Dupré, Ewing, Garland, Gentry, Hartridge, Heiskell, Holcombe, Johnston, Kenner, Lander, Lyons, Machen, McRae, Moore, Royston, and Swan.
Nays: Arrington, Ashe, Atkins, Ayer, Baldwin, Batson, Belt, Bonham, Boyce, Breckinridge, Bridgers, Eli M. Bruce, Chambers, Chambliss, Chilton, Clapp, Clark, Clopton, Collier, Crockett, Curry, Davidson, Dawkins, Elliott, Farrow, Foote, Foster, Freeman, Gardenhire, Garnett, Gartrell, Goode, Graham, Gray, Hanly, Harris, Herbert, Hilton, Hodge, Holt, Jones, Kenan of Georgia, Kenan of North Carolina, Lyon, Marshall, McDowell, McLean, McQueen,
Page 396 | Page image
Menees, Miles, Munnerlyn, Perkins, Preston, Pugh, Ralls, Read, Sexton, Smith of Alabama, Smith of North Carolina, Strickland, Tibbs, Trippe, Vest, Welsh, Wilcox, Wright of Texas, and Mr. Speaker.
So the amendment was lost.
The question then being on the amendment offered by Mr. Bonham,
Mr. Ewing demanded the yeas and nays;
Which were ordered,
Yeas: Ashe, Atkins, Ayer, Bonham, Boyce, Chambliss, Clark, Crockett, Farrow, Hanly, Herbert, Jones, Marshall, McQueen, Perkins, Preston, Smith of Alabama, Smith of North Carolina, Strickland, Trippe, and Welsh.
Nays: Arrington, Baldwin, Barksdale, Batson, Breckinridge, Bridgers, Horatio W. Bruce, Eli M. Bruce, Chambers, Chilton, Chrisman, Clapp, Clopton, Collier, Conrad, Conrow, Curry, Dargan, Davis, Dawkins, De Jarnette, Dupré, Elliott, Ewing, Foster, Freeman, Gardenhire, Garland, Garnett, Gartrell, Goode, Graham, Gray, Harris, Hartridge, Heiskell, Hilton, Hodge, Holcombe, Holt, Johnston, Kenan of Georgia, Kenan of North Carolina, Kenner, Lander, Lyon, Lyons, Machen, McDowell, McLean, McRae, Miles, Moore, Munnerlyn, Pugh, Ralls, Read, Royston, Russell, Sexton, Swan, Tibbs, Wilcox, Wright of Texas, and Mr. Speaker.
So the amendment was lost.
The question then being on the engrossment of the bill,
Mr. Davis demanded the yeas and nays;
Which were ordered,
Yeas: Arrington, Baldwin, Batson, Breckinridge, Horatio W. Bruce, Eli M. Bruce, Chambers, Chambliss, Chilton, Chrisman, Clapp, Conrad, Conrow, Cooke, Dargan, Dawkins, De Jarnette, Elliott, Freeman, Gardenhire, Garnett, Gentry, Graham, Hartridge, Hilton, Hodge, Holt, Kenan of Georgia, Kenan of North Carolina, Kenner, Lander, Lyon, Machen, McLean, Menees, Miles, Munnerlyn, Push, Ralls, Read, Royston, Sexton, Swan, Tibbs, Vest, and Wright of Texas.
Nays: Ashe, Atkins, Ayer, Barksdale, Bonham, Boyce, Bridgers, Clopton, Crockett, Curry, Davidson, Davis, Dupré, Ewing, Farrow, Foote, Foster, Garland, Gartrell, Goode, Gray, Hanly, Harris, Heiskell, Herbert, Holcombe, Johnston, Jones, Lyons, Marshall, McDowell, McRae, McQueen, Moore, Perkins, Preston, Russell, Smith of Alabama, Smith of North Carolina, Strickland, Trippe, Welsh, Wilcox, and Mr. Speaker.
So the bill was ordered to be engrossed.
Mr. Conrad moved that the vote ordering the engrossment of the bill be reconsidered.
Mr. Heiskell moved that the bill be laid upon the table.
Upon which Mr. Miles called for the yeas and nays;
Which were ordered,
Yeas: Atkins, Barksdale, Horatio W. Bruce, Eli M. Bruce, Burnett,
Page 397 | Page image
Clopton, Conrad, Conrow, Crockett, Currin, Davidson, Dupré, Ewing, Freeman, Gardenhire, Gentry, Goode, Gray, Harris, Heiskell, Holt, Johnston, Jones, Lyons, McRae, Moore, Perkins, Russell, Smith of Alabama, Vest, and Mr. Speaker.
Nays: Arrington, Ashe, Ayer, Baldwin, Batson, Bell, Bonham, Boyce, Breckinridge, Bridgers, Chambers, Chilton, Chrisman, Clapp, Clark, Curry, Dargan, Davis, Dawkins, De Jarnette, Elliott, Farrow, Foote, Foster, Garland, Garnett, Gartrell, Graham, Hanly, Hartridge, Herbert, Hilton, Hodge, Kenan of Georgia, Kenan of North Carolina, Kenner, Lander, Lyon, Machen, Marshall, McDowell, McLean, McQueen, Menees, Miles, Munnerlyn, Preston, Pugh, Ralls, Read, Royston, Sexton, Smith of North Carolina, Strickland, Swan, Tibbs, Trippe, Welsh, Wilcox, and Wright of Texas.
So the motion to lay on the table was lost.
Mr. Moore demanded the question; which was ordered, and the motion to reconsider was agreed to.
Mr. Harris moved to amend the bill by striking out the words. "forty-five years," wherever occurring, and inserting in lieu thereof the words "forty years."
Upon which Mr. Swan demanded the question; which was ordered.
Mr. Harris called for the yeas and nays.
The call was seconded,
Yeas: Atkins, Ayer, Batson, Bell, Boyce, Breckinridge, Clark, Curry, Davidson, Dupré, Farrow, Freeman, Gray, Hanly, Harris, Herbert, Jones, Kenner, Lyons, Marshall, McDowell, McLean, Menees, Perkins, Ralls, Russell, Sexton, Smith of Alabama, Strickland, Trippe, Wilcox, Wright of Texas, and Mr. Speaker.
Nays: Arrington, Ashe, Baldwin, Barksdale, Bonham, Bridgers, Horatio W. Bruce, Eli M. Bruce, Burnett, Chambers, Chambliss, Chilton, Chrisman, Clapp, Clopton, Conrad, Conrow, Crockett, Currin, Dargan, Davis, Dawkins, De Jarnette, Elliott, Ewing, Foote, Foster, Gardenhire, Garland, Garnett, Gartrell, Gentry, Goode, Hartridge, Heiskell, Hilton, Hodge, Holcombe, Holt, Johnston, Kenan of Georgia, Kenan of North Carolina, Lander, Lyon, Machen, McRae, McQueen, Miles, Moore, Munnerlyn, Preston, Pugh, Royston, Smith of North Carolina, Swan, Tibbs, Vest, and Welsh.
So the amendment was lost.
Mr. Chilton moved to amend the bill by striking out all after the word "to" in the third line of the first section and insert in lieu thereof the following, viz:
the maintenance of public liberty and security, and the successfully conducting of the pending war, he shall be authorized to call for the raising of as many additional troops from time to time as in his opinion the public exigency may require.
Page 398 | Page image
which period any person subject to perform military duty in said State may volunteer and join any company from said State for the filling up of which the call may in part have been made but said company shall not by volunteers be increased beyond its maximum legal number, and the persons so volunteering shall be counted as part of the quota to be furnished by said State, and shall conform to rules to be prescribed by the War Department for ascertaining the number so volunteering.
Mr. Chambers called the question; which was seconded.
The reading of the amendment having been called for, Mr. Foote made the point that it was out of order the question having been called and seconded.
The Chair overruled the point of order.
Mr. Foote appealed from the decision of the Chair, and the question being put,
Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the House?
The same was decided in the affirmative. The amendment of Mr. Chilton was lost.
Mr. Hanly moved to amend the first section of the bill; which is as follows, to wit:
Page 399 | Page image
years or during the present war, if it should be sooner ended, all white male citizens of the Confederate States, not legally exempted from such service, between the ages of thirty-five and forty-five years; and such authority shall exist in the President during the present war as to all persons who now are or may hereafter become eighteen years of age, and, when once enrolled, all persons between the ages eighteen and forty-five years shall verve their full term, and no one be entitled a discharge because he may have passed the age of forty-five years before such term of service expires,
by striking out all after the words "their full term" and inserting in lieu thereof the words
Provided, however, That the regiment raised under and by authority of the State of Texas and now in the service of said State for frontier defense is hereby exempted from the provisions and operations of this act: And provided, That if the President, in calling out troops into the service of the Confederate States, shall first call for only a part of the persons between the ages hereinbefore stated, he shall first call for those between the age of thirty-five and any other age less than forty-five, and apportion the same between the several States, taking into consideration their relative population between the ages of thirty-five and forty-five and the number of troops already furnished to the Army by the respective States under former acts, so far as the same may be practicable without departing from the principle of calling out troops according to age: And provided further, That in estimating the number of troops furnished by any State under former acts such State shall be credited with all the companies mustered into service from said State.
Mr. Vest moved to amend the bill by striking out all after the enacting clause and inserting as follows, to wit:
That the President be, and he is hereby, authorized to call out and place in the military service of the Confederate States for three years, unless the war should be sooner ended, all white men who are residents of the Confederate States, between the ages of thirty five and forty-five years at the time the call or calls may be made, and who are not, at such time or times, legally exempted from military service; such call or calls to be made under the provisions and according to the terms of the act to which this is an amendment: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be understood as repealing or modifying any part of the act to which this is amendatory, except as herein expressly stated: And provided further, That those called out under this act and the act to which this is an amendment shall be first and immediately ordered to fill, to their maximum number, the companies, battalions, squadrons, and regiments in service from the respective States at the time the act further to provide for the public defense, approved sixteenth of April, eighteen hundred and sixty-two, was passed, and the surplus, if any, shalt be assigned to organizations formed from each State since the passage of that act, or placed in new organizations, or disposed of as now provided by law: Provided further, That the President is authorized to suspend the execution of this act, or the acts to which this is an amendment, or any special provision or provisions of said act, in any locality where he believes such suspension will promote the public interest.
Mr. Atkins moved that the bill and amendments be recommitted to the Committee on Military Affairs.
Mr. Swan demanded the previous question; which was ordered, and the motion was lost.
The question then being on the amendment of Mr. Hanly,
The same was agreed to.
Mr. Elliott moved that the House adjourn.
The motion was lost.
And the question being on the motion of Mr. Vest to amend the bill, Mr. Vest called for the yeas and nays;
Which were ordered,
Yeas: Bonham, Horatio W. Bruce, Eli M. Bruce, Burnett, Conrad, Conrow, Cooke, Crockett, Currin, Dargan, Davis, De Jarnette, Dupré, Elliott, Ewing, Freeman, Gardenhire, Goods, Harris, Heiskell, Holcombe,
Page 400 | Page image
Holt, Johnston, Jones, Lander, Lyon, Lyons, McRae, Moore, Read, Russell, Swan, and Tibbs.
Nays: Arrington, Ashe, Atkins, Ayer, Baldwin, Batson, Bell; Bridgers, Chambers, Chambliss, Chilton, Chrisman, Clapp, Clark, Clopton, Curry, Davidson, Dawkins, Farrow, Foote, Foster, Garland, Garnett, Gartrell, Gentry, Graham, Gray, Hanly, Hartridge, Herbert, Hilton, Kenan of Georgia, Kanan of North Carolina, Kenner, Machen, Marshall, McDowell, McLean, McQueen, Menees, Miles, Munnerlyn, Perkins, Preston, Pugh, Ralls, Royston, Sexton, Smith of Alabama, Smith of North Carolina, Strickland, Trippe, Welsh, Wilcox, Wright of Texas, and Mr. Speaker.
So the amendment was lost.
The bill was then engrossed and read a third time.
Mr. Curry called the question upon the passage of the bill; which was seconded, and Mr. Perkins called for the yeas and nays;
Which were ordered,
Yeas: Arrington, Atkins, Baldwin, Batson, Bell, Eli M. Bruce, Chambers, Chilton, Chrisman, Clapp, Conrad, Conrow, Cooke, Currin, Dargan, Dawkins, De Jarnette, Elliott, Foster, Garnett, Gentry, Graham, Gray, Hartridge, Heiskell, Hilton, Holcombe, Holt, Kenan of Georgia, Kenan of North Carolina, Kenner, Lander, Lyon, Machen, McLean, Menees, Miles, Munnerlyn, Preston, Pugh, Read, Royston, Sexton, Swan, Tibbs, Vest, Wilcox, Wright of Texas, and Mr. Speaker.
Nays: Ashe, Aver, Bonham, Bridgers, Horatio W. Bruce, Chambliss, Clark, Clopton, Crockett, Curry, Davidson, Davis, Dupré, Ewing, Farrow, Foote, Freeman, Gardenhire, Garland, Gartrell, Goode, Hanly, Harris, Herbert, Johnston, Jones, Marshall, McDowell, McRae, McQueen, Moore, Perkins, Ralls, Russell, Smith of Alabama, Smith of North Carolina, Strickland, Trippe, and Welsh.
So the bill was passed, and is as follows, to wit:
A bill to be entitled "An act to provide for the filling up of existing companies, squadrons, battalions, and regiments, and to increase the Provisional Army of the Confederate States."
Page 401 | Page image
respective States between the ages of thirty-five and forty-five years, and also for those who now are or may hereafter become eighteen years old, as aforesaid, not legally, exempted; and when assembled in camps of instruction in the several States, they shall be assigned to and form part of the companies, squadrons, battalions, and regiments heretofore raised in their respective States and now in the service of the Confederate States; and the number that may remain from any State after filling up existing companies, squadrons, battalions, and regiments from such State to their maximum legal number shall be officered according to the laws of the State having such residue.
Mr. Atkins moved that the vote by which the bill was passed be reconsidered.
Mr. Read moved to lay the motion on the table.
Mr. Conrad moved that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was lost.
The motion of Mr. Read to lay on the table the motion of Mr. Atkins was agreed to.
Mr. Kenan of Georgia introduced
A bill to empower quartermasters and assistant quartermasters to administer oaths in certain cases, thereby saving expense to soldiers; which was read the first and second times.
On motion of Mr. Kenan of Georgia, the rules were suspended, and the bill taken up for consideration.
Mr. Swan called the question; which was seconded, and the bill was engrossed, read a third time, and passed.
Mr. Chamber, moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed.
A message was received from the President, by his Private Secretary, Mr. Harrison; which is as follows, to wit:
The President, on yesterday, approved and signed a joint resolution of thanks to Commander Farrand of the Confederate Navy, senior officer in command of the naval and military forces, and Capt. A. Drewry, senior military officer, and the officers and men under their command at Drewry's Bluff on the 15th of May, 1862.
Page 402 | Page image
Mr. Foster moved that the House reconsider the vote by which the resolution from the Senate that Congress adjourn on the 30th September, instant, was agreed to.
On motion,
The House then adjourned until 11 o'clock on Friday.
PREVIOUS SECTION .. NEXT SECTION .. NAVIGATOR
| PREVIOUS | NEXT | NEW SEARCH |