Mr. CLARK. There is no question, I think, about the facts. The great point to be ascertained is, whether this man is now and has been all along a Union man. I think there was not a doubt or a shadow of doubt in the mind of any person who heard him or who heard the testimony before the committee, that he had been throughout a Union man, not only a Union man, but such a Union man as would put some of us to shame that we should be admitted into the Senate because we were Union men and he should b. but out. When I have laid on the ground by m ht, night after night, for my Unionism, I maye aim something for it. When I have been arrested time an ask, have we again for my Unionism, I may claim something for it. When my house has been guarded night after night by rebels to prevent my escape or to prevent me going to the aid of the nion people, I may claim something for in Union ism. When I have established or ai ed to establish an underground railroad miles through the enemy’s country and have piloted men through that country and aided them to go into the Union Army to fight rebellion, then I may claim something for my Unionism and all this has this man done upon whose casewe are now assin. what is ighc objection to him? Sim.ly this: that in 1854 he was elected ajudge of the circuit court in Tennessee when that State was loyal; he held that office all the time as a Union man until that State seceded, resisting rebellion, resisting secession in every way that he could, still remaining a Union man; and that afterward, when the term of his office expired, when the 8 years were out, he was again elected, by whom? By the Union people of East Tennessee against the rebels, for the protection of the Union people. To protect them he consented to hold the office. And is such a man to be refused admission to the Senate because he risked himself, he risked his life, he risked his family, he risked his property for the protection of Union men, when after he was elected and took the office he did no one act that ever can be proved, or as an body pretends, to aid the rebellion, but held the oliice in opposition to rebellion, in op position to secession, in hostility to the conigd cracy, claiming that he held it under the old State government, true to the Union, and in no other way? Mr. President, the object of the oath is to prevent rebels and secessionists from coming into the Senate, not to exclude Union men like the Senator elect from Tennessee; and if he can take the oath, as I understand him to say he can, because he did not hold that office under the rebel government, never claimed so to hold it, always said he rejected their authority and held it under the old State government for the protection of the Union men, I, for one, say that he is entitled to his seat. I will let him settle that question. I will pass upon his acts, upon the testimony of his being a Union man; and if I find him to be a Union man, and he says, “I have been so far a Union man that I can cheerfully take the oath, " I am willing to give my vote that he shall take his seat.