Mr. DIXON. No; it is not the act of congress. The Senator says that this resolution is not an act of Congress, is not the action of congress. I do not say that it is. The resolution itself, I think, is so shaped as possibly not to be the action of Congress. Why? Because it is several; it is not joint. I think there is a very great doubt whether the Senator has evade the Constitution by this, although I agree he has come very near it, and possibl has done it. But I am not now talking of this resolution, whether this is a law of Congress or not; but I am speaking of the action of Congress to which it refers, which it anticipates, which it contemplates. It prevides that no member shall be admitted into either branch of Congress from such State “until Congress shall have declared" the State entitled to representation. Will the Senator deny that that requires an act of Congress?. 0w can Congress declare a thing? Can Congress declare that a certain State is not entitled to representation except in due form of legislatnon? Nobody will contend for that. Wilien the Constitution says that Congress shall do so and so, it means that the lawmaking power may do it; and you may here substitute “the lawmaking power” for “Congress” without altering the meaning in the slightest degree, “shall be admitted into either branch of Congress from any of said States until the lawmaking power shall have declared such State entitled to such representation." I desire to ask the Senator if that is not the meaning. This resolution I do not claim is an act of Congress, nor do I consider it the action of Congress, but of each House; but that is immaterial. I as this means precisely as if it was written, “s all be admitted into either branch of Congress from an of said States until the lawmaking power shall have declared such State entitle to such representation.” What is the lawmaking power? It is the 2 Houses of Congress and the President. That is the pesition we are placed in by this resolution, if it amounts to anything; I agree it does not, but if it is of binding force you never can admit a member into this body until the POTUS shall s the bill, unless you can do it by a 2/3rds vote over his veto. That is the mode in which the Senate desires to preserve the independence of the Senate. I confess, again, I cannot see it in that light. But what is this resolution? I have a few comments to make on it. It is very singular in its incetion and in its character. It was introduce in the other House with the decla ration that it was in consequence of the veto message, and a great leader there stated that he should have been willing to admit members from Tennessee, ifI am not ver much mistaken, but for that veto message. nd what does the veto message say? That the POTUS desired such admission. That leader was willin to udmit representation from Tennessee if the POTUS had not expressed his desire for it. That is the whole of it. I take the chairman of our JtCommee at his wordI think that was the reason; and I must say here upon my responsibility that I do not think it a good reason. It is not a good reason for refusing representation to a State. that the POTUS desires it, even if he expresses his desire in a manner which some may consider somewhat objectionable. The Constitution says he shall give us information of the state of the Union. It is his duty to do it. He has done it. He has told us considering the state of the Union on that subject, that there is a State not represented which on ht to be; he says so; and therefore a great and distinguished eader says he will change his mind; that having come to the conclusion that the members from Tennessee ought to be admitted, he will refuse them admission for this reason. “ The resolution begins with sa ng that it is in order to close agitation.” this is a subject which agitates and will continue to agitate this whole country. The waves of popular feeling are running high and will be more tumultuous; agitation never will cease till more or less of the representation of these States is admitted. But the Senator says to close agitatiOn on this subject we should adopt this resolution. The people are agitated; the desire to admit the Tennessee members. We are to stop their agitation by telling them we will not do it. Will that close agitation? Imight refer to the ekperienceof some members of this body. The Senfrom Massachusetts has been in his day somewhat of an agitator. My breath is not.agitation, but there have been times when he has gloried in being called an agitator, and there have been attempts to close his agitation, and how 2 Bylaw. This is not even a law. There was the Kansas Nebraska bill which was intended to close the Senators agitation, and the agitation of the Senfrom Illinois, and the agitation of the Senfrom Maine, by declaring that the people of a Territory should decide for themselves, and that Congress had no power virtually to act on the question of slavery. Did that close agitation? Did the repeal of the Missouri compromise close agitation I There was another attempt. A decision was made by the SCOTUS with the view of closing agitation upon the question of slavery. That court decided that Congress had no power to pass an act upon the subject of slavery either in the States or in the Territories, and they fondly believed that would close agitation. Were men ever more deceived? Did it close agitation? If any act could accomplish the impossibility that would do it. It was supposed by some deluded men that the SCOTUS having taken that ground, the people of this country would stop their agitation and would cease to talk and legislate on the subject of slavery by their representatives in Congress. But, sir, that agitation has gone on until it has culminated in war, and finally slavery has been abolished on the battle field. I do not think the Senator is supported by experience in his desire to close agitation in this way. He knows that the vast business interests of this country are eagerly intent on this question. He knows that the people of this country are mutually attracted, the orth and the South, and they must sooner orlater act together. He knows perfectly well that whatever Congress may do, this question will not cease to be agitated. Adjourn, if you see fit, without settling this question; leave it as it is; admit no member from Tennessee; and when you go through the States next fall which hold their elections for Congress, see whether agitation has ceased. Sir, a word of caution may not be unfit on that subject. In my judgment it is the solemn duty of this body today, tomorrow, at the 1st possible time to take 11 the credentials of Mr. 1owler— I name him; e is the applicant here as Senfrom Tennessee—and to act upon that question, and in acting upon it, to consider the entire question whether Tennessee is a State in the nion, whether she has a Legislature, whetherher people are loyal, whether the public safety will permit her admission, whether the man himse f is fit to be admitted. On that question there is no doubt. Nobody questions that Mr. Fowler is as loyal a man as the Senfrom Ohio himself. Upon that question there is no dis ute. It is our duty to act upon the question O his admission. We cannotevade it. we cannot throw it upon Congress. Congress has no jurisdiction of the subject, in my judgment. this the duty of the Senate of the U.S., an independent body, of being a member of which I am proud, as the Senfrom Maine declares himself to be, but never with my consent will I relinquish one of the prerogatives of this body. It is for us to say and it is our do? instantly, upon the moment, as a question O privilege, the privilege of a State, the privilege of a member, the privilege of the whole country, to consider the question of the repre sentation of Tennessee, and of other States as their cases are presented. Every day that you omit it, in my humble judgment, Senators, you omit to do your (lot.,I shall vote for it at every opportunity ofiere. If others do not, the responsibility is theirs. nt, sir, what is the policy proposed instead of this? Instead of acting on this question, in stead of the Senate of the U.S. taking up this question of the right of a State to representation, and of the right of the member chosen to be a member of the Senate, what is proposed? The Senfrom Ohio [Mr. “TADlfl has asked me to state the policy of the President. It is more difficult to state the policy of those who oppose the President.