Mr. RAMSEY. Why not?, Mr. STEWART. Because the are notqual ified. We have arightto expel them afterthey come here. We are bound to do it. If a man is elected by a disloyal organization, in violation, of cod faith to the Government, you have a rightto inquire into that as a part of his election. You have done it and can do it without any congressional action. While I remain here, I intend to do it. I intend to see that disloyal persons are excluded, so far as my vote oes, at I do not intend to admit that the logic of Jeff. Davis was correct. The power of the Senate to protect itself is too well understood for anybody to doubt it. It can just as well protect itself as it can with the other Houseto help it. Suppose that a person should come here claiming to be a senator and the question should arise whether the Legislature that clect d him was loyal. suppose that some of the members of that Legislature had been convicted of treason and were not entitled to seats in that legislative body, but were more usurpers in it, and his, creden tials were here, would we not investigate the fact to see whether he obtained the requisite number of legal votes to elect him, and would we call upon the House to help us in the decision of thatquestion? You say 3131o.therwise it ran happen that a State may be represented in the House and not in the Senate, or rice ccrsa. May it not happen that certain districts of a State are entitPed to representation, and the whole State not be entitled to representation? Suppose that a district is truly loyal, as has been the case in several instances; suppose that every man, woman, and child within that district is willin to stand by the flag, and a member is elected by and goes to the other House from that district, have the laws of that State been so abrogated, is the State out of the Union so that that House cannot investigate the fact whether his loyal constituents shall be there represented? t may be that the majority of a State may be loyal, and may organize a loyal State government, and there may be districts in that State that cannot be represented, or districts that will not send propermen. I deny that when you admit the right of a State to representation you are bound to admit all the dele gation from that State at once. You are to investigate the cases of the persons who come here, and see whether they come, u to your standard. Each House can do that Better separatcly than they can pointly, for a joint ru e may not work well. O you pretend to say that if there is a district in the South that has always been loyal during this war, Jell. Davis had the power to deprive those people of the right of representation? If so, why? Because he hasabrogated the laws of Coneress; and for no other reason. Davis never did have control of East Tennessee. He was simply a raider there. Those people stood out from the beginning to the end. hey foughttreason where it was darkest and thickest. so you say that, not withstanding he could not quench their insa tiable thirst of liberty and loyalty, notwithstanding he could not make them false to the Union by burning their houses over their de fenseless heads, and by robbing them of their property, he could render them incapable of i enjoyin the privileges to which they are enti {.led under the Constitution under which they ive? If these people in the case Lhave supposed have lost their right of representation, it is not from their status; because in that section the status was just as good as anybodys, but from the fact that there was some validity in the or dinance of secession; and if we admit that validity, and say that we are forced to readmit the State or pass any resolution that may be so construed, the precedent will surely injure the perpetuity of our Government. It IS admitting a rotten lank. It is admitting that a part. of the people of a State may deprive the remain der of the rights which they have under the Constitution. That is something that the last Administration were tenacious a out. It was a thing that the Union party in the late strug gle were tenacious about. This resolution saysthat they shall not be admitted until Congress shall declare those States entitled to representation. If that is so how is Congress to declare it? I ask in all seriousness, how shall they declare it? Suppose they do it by a law, that law must assume, as this resolution does, that these clcven States are not States in the Union and entitled to representation, no matter how royal the State governments or the Senators or Representatives who apply for admission may be; but the President and here is his crime has expressed a different opinion. He holds that loyal men representing State governments in these rebellious States that are in conformity to the laws of the U.S. am he admitted to Congress. If you say, how do we know that their constitutions are in accordance with it, how do we know that they have such constitutions, I say examine them, just as you do in every case. Supose the State of California should again c lame her constitution, as she has once done, and then elect a Senator and send him here, would you have to readmit the State?