Mr. DIXON. I know that we had a contest on the admission of those seuators. I know that we were divided on that subject. I know that the Senfrom Illinois thought that they on ht to be admitted. I so understood him. It ought the majority of the Senate were in favor of their admission at that session. Per haps I am mistaken. The record will show, and Iwill examine it on that point. Now, one single word as to the right of the Senate to judge of this whole matter. The Senator says it is an act of usurpation for the Senate to judge whether a State is a foreign government, or at war against this Government or in any way, by reason of such a state of things, unfit to be represented. I have already read what Judge Story says on that subject, an"d I will read it once more. It is obvious that a power must be lodged some where to iudge of the e actions.returns and qualifications of the membersof eachHousecomposing the Legislature; for otherwise there could be no eer tainty as to who were legitimately chosen members and any intruder or usurper might claim a.seat and thus trample upontherightsand privilegesand liberties of the people. Indeed. Elections would become, under sueh circumstances.nmere mockery; and legislation the exercise of sovereignty by myself consti tnterl body. “The only possible question on such a subieet is as to the body in which such a powershall be lodged. Iflodged in anyother than the legislative body itself, its independence,its purity, and even its exrstence and action may be destroyedo. but into imminent danger. No other bad but itsel can have the same motivesto preservean perpetuate these attributes no other body can be so perpetuallywatchful to guard its own rights and privileges from infringement, to purify an vindicate its own character, and to pre servethe rights and sustain the free choice of its constituents. Accordingly, KhGJlOWGI has always been lodged in the legislative he by the uniform pradtice of England and America. Whatis the legislative body? It is each House of Congress. Congress is made up of 2 bodies, the HoRep and the Senate, and, when it acts as a lawmaking power, the Executive, who must give his approval. Now, the Senator says I have advanced here a strange doctrine, and he, cruel man as he is, has driven me into a position in which I have been compelled to assert an enormous heresy, one that is scarcely compatible with an honest desire and intention to perform the duties of a Senator. I have taken no such ground. I have taken no ground that the Senate has aright to usurp powers. I think it has jurisdiction of the entire question ofwhat constitutes a Senator in every aspect; and the fact that that power may be abused does not go against its Jurisdiction. That is all I said. I said admitting it was physical power audit might be abused did not prove that the jurisdiction did not exist. A jury may be corrupt; they have the ph sical power to do wrong; but they have uris iction of the question before them, and they can render a verdiet. That ver diet may be void for fraud or collusion or any other reason. There may be an appeal and a new trial. But here there is no appeal, no new trial. The decision of this body is final. There must be an end at some time of questions of this kind, and the Constitution of the U.S. has declared that the final decision shall rest in the Senate of the U.S., and in the other House upon a similar questiou. Does it follow because it may eabused that the power does not exist? and am I to be hel up, in that solemn and magistenal tone which the Senator is so fond of assuming, asa man who has asserted before this Senate on atrocious doctrine, to which, he says, with that ample charity with which he covers the sins of his colleagues, I was driven by his powerful argument? If I was I am certainly excusable for the position I took if I could use no other. I said t iat the jurisdiction existed. It might be abused, but the fact that it might be abused that physical power might be resorted to, did not prove that the jurisdiction did not exisL This bod can exclude any member here, that Senator imself or myself, for any reason, or without ving a reason. Would it be right to do it? f course it would not, but the fact that it can be abused, that tyranny may be practiced, and des olism may prevail here, does not show that we have not the power. I do not wish to be understood as agreeing with the Senfrom Illinois. He laid down a doctrine to which I do not a ee. I think that a State lately in rebellion is not entitled immediately to representation in this body or in the other House; but who shall judge on that question? I say that this body and this body alone has the right to judge on the question of the admission of Senators, and that. on gress has no jurisdiction whatever over the sub ect. I do not say that an act of Congress would be improper, but I say that this Senate would not be bound by it. I say that if Congress could pass an act today, and it should be approved by the President, excluding Tennessee from the nion, we could admit a Senfrom Tennessee as a member of this body, and I avow here that I should vote for his admission in spite of such a law, because I should think such a law in violation of the constitutional rights of this O y. It will be remembered that when the resolution for the appointment of this committee of 15 was betidrethe Senate I offered an amendment to it providing that nothing therein contained should be so construed as to impair or delay the right of this body to judge of the qualifications of its own members. The Senfrom Massachusetts [Ma SUMNER] asked me if I supposed that any law could do that. I said no, I did not suppose so, but I would not pass an act that seemed on its face to do it. I would not pass an act that might be construed as doin it. I think the Senator meant that he believe Congress had no power to take away the entire jurisdiction of thisbody over the whole subject. It rests, in my judgment, here. Now, sir, I do not suppose there is any Senator on this floor who would be more strict and more radical, if you please to call it so, than I should as to the question whether a man from the rebel States was fit to be a member of this bod. Ivoted to expel a man in liminc coming romaloyal State at peace with this Government, because he said, that Jeff Daviss flag was his flag. I differed from many Senators in that respect; and now if a member comes here from SCarolina I shall require of him the strictest proof, not only that his State is a fit one in all respects to be repre sented here, but that he himself is a fit asso ciate for Senators on this floor, and that it is consistent with the public safety that he should sit here. That raises the question of time. With regard to that question would not admit that any party desires delay. I was not objecting to an examination on that point. I was objecting to theoretical propositions being raised, schemes, projects, theories which require an indefinite time for their decision and consideration before the Senate could act on this question. That is what I had reference to when I spoke of the question of indefinite time, and not to the time that this body might exhaustu I should say that this body ought to take all the time that it supposed to be necessary, however long it might be, and if we were acting on the question of the admission of Senators from ennessee, I do not think the public mind would be agitated because we took time to consider it. But when you lay down the ropesition that no representation can possibly be had from any State irrespective of its character, irrespective of the loyalty of the claimants until certain policies, projects, and guarantees are secured, I think it is a very different question. It strikes me that every Senator who argues in favo of those guarantees will agree with me. They all admit that the guarantees which they demand are a work of time, and if the must be considered before this body can act, there will be great delay. But, sir, I have exhausted myself and the Senate, and I shall say no more.