decided that there existed between the rebel-
lious States and the United States a condition
of war which places the two in the relation of
belligerents, and gives to each all the rights
which belong to belligerents in an interna-
tional war.
"I believe I speak advisedly when I say
that, whatever may be their language, the
court designed and affirmed no such general
proposition. They held what, indeed, cannot
be denied, because your legislation recognizes
its existence, and because, independent of
that recognition, the fact is apparent that a
state of war exists. That the insurrection,
however at the first it might have been arrest-
ed by the mere civil power, had culminated
to a point which places it beyond that power,
or any other but the power of war. In say-
ing this, however, the court referred only to
the particular cases which were before them,
and cases of like character, and to the partic-
ular questions presented by such cases. They
relied upon belligerent rights growing out of
the actual war, merely with the view to show
that the goods captured upon the high seas,
coming from the territorial limits of the re-
bellious States were to be considered, under
the prize law, as prize of war; and that the
question whether legal prize or not was to be
determined by the principles of the prize law
as a part of the law of nations. But in so
ruling, in answer to the objection, that al-
though in one sense a war, it was a rebellion
in which each citizen in the rebellious States
was guilty of treason against the United
States, they said that that was true, but
that such parties were not the less to be es-
teemed enemies because they were traitors,
" The court never intimated, as I read their
opinion, that the existence of a belligerent re-
lation between the two forces terminated the
civil obligations which the citizens of the re-
bellious States are under to the government
of the United States; but, on the contrary,
announced, as before stated, that their being
traitors did not, in the view of the prize law,
show that they were not also enemies. The
court, I understand, decided that each of the
citizens or inhabitants of the rebellious States
still owes, as before, unqualified allegiance
to the government of the United States, and
to be under an obligation to fulfil it; and
consequently, that when the authority of the
United States shall be restored, such of them
may be proceeded against as traitors who
may have voluntary aided the rebellion."
There is the construction of what this court
has said. Then I ask, if you do not have
some such restriction as this, what is to hin-
der such men as Bradley T. Johnson, and
others engaged in this rebellion, from com-
ing back here and claiming the right to vote,
and thus overturning our free institutions by
bringing treason to corrupt the very purity
of the ballot-box? We need just such an
oath as this in order to purge men. And as |
has been so well said here to-day by my col-
leagues, why should men claim the right to
Tote, or want to vote under the government
protecting them, when their avowed pur-
pose is to destroy and break up the govern-
ment under which they claim their rights and
privileges ?
1 say that if gentlemen are right on this
question, if they do not sympathize with the
rebellion, they have only to say so to be al-
lowed the same rights that others have. But
as I had occasion to say on this floor once be-
fore, if I were under Jeff. Davis' government,
and wanted to overthrow that government,
as an honest man I never would hold office
under it, or take an oath to support it. 1
would do neither of those things unless in my
heart I wanted that government to prevail.
And I do not believe any other honest man
in heart will offer to vote under a government
which he is trying to destroy.
Mr. BARRON moved the previous question,
which was seconded.
Mr. DAVIS, of Charles. I rise for the pur-
pose of making a personal explanation.
The PRESIDENT. That is not now in order.
The previous question has been moved and
seconded. And the question now is upon
ordering the main question to be put.
Upon this question Mr. MARBURY called
for the yeas and nays, which were ordered.
The question was then taken, by yeas and
nays, and resulted—yeas 35, nays 23—as fol-
lows :
Yeas—Messrs. Goldsborough, President;
Abbott, Annan, Audoun, Baker, Barron,
Cunningham, Cushing, Daniel, Davis, of
Washington, Dellinger, Ecker, Galloway,
Greene, Hebb, Jones, of Cecil, Kennard,
King, Markey, McComas, Mullikin, Murray,
Parker, Pugh, Purnell, Russell, Schlosser,
Scott, Smith, of Worcester, Sneary, Stirling,
Stockbridge, Swope, Todd, Wooden—35.
Nays—Messrs. Belt, Billingsley, Blackis-
ton, Brown, Chambers, Crawford Davis, of
Charles, Dent, Duvall, Edelen, Hollyday,
Horsey, Johnson, Lansdale, Lee, Marbury,
Mitchell, Miller, Morgan, Parran, Peter,
Smith, of Dorchester, Turner—23.
The main question was accordingly or-
dered.
The following explanations, pending the
call of the yeas and nays, were made by mem-
bers as their names were called ;
Mr. BELT. One or two other gentlemen,
myself among the number, desire to be heard
a few minutes upon this question. If every
one bad been heard who desired to speak, of
course I should have no objection to the pre-
vious question being called. But as that is
not the case I vote " no."
Mr. DAVIS, of Charles. I shall be com-
pelled to vote in the negative on this ques-
tion, We have adopted a rule here restrict-
ing each member to twenty minutes in the
expression of his views upon any question |
