Mr. HENDRICKS. On some reflection, I think the Senfrom Pennsylvania is rightin' the position which he has taken. The law and the rule of the Senate require that the oath shall be taken as a condition to the right to occupy the seat. Ifthe proposed member takes the oath, then under the law and the rule of the Senate he is entitled to his seat. The condition of the law and of the rule is complied with thus far. But if in the taking of the oath he is false, I would be unwilling to sit with him. I should regard it as an offense to the Senate that in taking the seat a man had taken afalse oath, and should with a majority of 2/3rds join for his expulsion. But, Mr. President, I think this question goes further and deeper than that question, which is one of technicality rather. tl understand the charge is that the person who presents himself as a Senfrom the State of Tennessee occupied the position and office of judge during the rebellion in that State. Now, I submit to Senators that this may be within the letter of the law but it is not within the spirit of the law, nor within the spirit of the rule of the Senate. It is not in the nature of things a crime ofan grade to hold and exercise the powers of a judicial office under a government defacto. It cannot be attributed as a wrong to a man that under a government defacto, however great a usurpation that government may be, he holds ajudicial office. “The holding ofajudicial ofice is notgiving aid and comfort to a rebellion. It is a commendable thing that a man shall faith fully discharge the duties of a judicial office anywhere an at any time. A political office or a military office in a government defacto set up against the rightful government is a very different thing. a the exercise of a political or a military office a man gives aid and comfort to the government defacta. Upon this question I ask the attention of the Senate to 25 high authorities. I ask the attention of the !Senate to the opinion of the distinguished Senator now deceased from the State of Vermont, and I ask the attention of the Senate to the opinion of Chief Justice Hale, when he held office under the Cromwelliun government. I will read from a speech delivered by Senator Collamer in 1862 during the rebellion, in which he discussed this very question: “But. it is said, men have actually taken offices there underthat government: they have had the audacit to do that since that governmenthas been establishedov erthem. I do not professto be very highly versedin the ethicsof politics. but I amfond ot lopking to examplesthat are bright and high. At the time of the robllion underCromwell.which had establisheda governmentdefacloover the peopleof aEpnpglliacnadti.oanndwaasdputdowntheexistingGovernment. madeto Chief Justice llalc, a man whose character 'standsushigh.perhaps.“ any in the annals of Christian Judges.to take the place of chiof i ustice, he beingop osedto that Government. Jus tice Hale consult with a couple of his friends, (bishops.)and afterfull deliberationcameto thisconclusion: 'Justice must be administered; the rights betwecn manandmanmustbeadjudgedupon: some bodymusthold courts; Ican consideritnosin to an oflieq under a defaqtogovernment, thoughittaiskae ujusdugrpeadtion, He took it; and that manwasnot ad CharlesIgIu. illTT of treason upon the restoration of o continuedin positionever afterward. In all the trouble betweepthe House of York and the House of Lancaster.in the wars of the Roses. when revolutions were constant and frequent one day a manof this family upon the throne and the next do oneof the other, asearly asthe period of Henry H a statute was passedwhich has abided in England through all the revolutions afterward. that no man shouldbe adyu edof treason because he was obedient to the reigning king. no matter if he wasa near er. such, sir, is the respect aid by the world, an especiafltt'hvat part of the world from which we SKHBK, to a efirdo vernment: and the nations of the earth deal with themasgovernments. no matterwhat the usurpation." After the rebellion became completely inau g'urated the authority of the Government of the 'U.S. was for the time suspended in the southern States, it became impossible for this Government to defend the people there, and of necessity they fell under the government defacto that was established over them. Is any Senator here prepared to say that it was a wrong in any man of the southern States to occupyan Office which was not political in its character, which was not military in its character, which did not give aid and comfort to the rebellion, which a ded nothing whatever to its stren th or power? Is any Senator prepared to say that it was wrong for a man to go upon the bench and adjudicate the civil and criminal questions that properly came before his court?