Mr. PrUMBULL. I regret that I cannot consistently vote for this resolution. I stated my views briefly when the question was up be fore, and will not take up any considerable time in repeating them now. But, sir, with this law upon the statute book, I do not see how the Senate can vote that the applicant is entitled to his seat on taking the oath, when it appears before the Senate on the report of the committee that if he takes the oath e takes it in the teeth of the law. The law says that every person shall take an oath that he has not sought or held any office or exercised the functions of any office under any government, or Breton ded government, in hostility to the U.S.; and now, if we vote that the applicant can take his seat on taking that oath when the fact is patent before us that he did hold an office under a government in hostility to the U.S., it seems to me it is saying that this oath amounts to nothing; you may as well repeal it. There is but one way in whrich we can preserve the law, maintain the sanctity of the law, and at the same time admit the applicant to his seat, upon the ground that although he held an office under the confederate government in hostility to the U.S., he did it, not for the purpose of aiding that government, but for the purpose of serving Union men. The only way we can admit the applicant, in my judgment, upon that state of facts, is to relieve him from taking that portion of the oath; and I think that was the proper course which the Senate adopted today. Then you reserve the law; then you say to the people otpthis country that whenever a disloyal man comes here, he is not to be admitted; that Congress will insist upon the oath; that he shall not be permitted to take his seat simply because he is willing to take the oath; that Congress will regard the oath, and no man that cannot literally take it shall be admitted to a seat while that law stands upon the statute book. Then, if there is a case where a loyal man ought to be admitted, it is our duty to remove the statute, so that he may take his seat. We cannot go before the country and say to the people of this country “ Here is a Union man; ere is a man that has been ersecuted for his loyalty; here is a man who ived in a portion of the country over which the rebels bore sway; who was hunted from his home; who succored Union men; who gave intelligence to the commanders of the Union armies; who comes now from a State that is entitled to representation according to the act of Congress, and presents himself and we turn him away.” We cannot do that. What shall we say to the people of the country when they ask us why such a person was not admitted to his seat? Shal we say to them, “He is not admitted to his seat because there is a law of Congress that says he shall not be admitted to his seat except he swears a certain oath; and he did acts inconsistent with that, and therefore is not admitted to his seat.” What is the reply? “ You make the laws; why did you not change that law so that justice and right could be done in the particular case?” It is the only way of escape. But, sir, if the applicant is permitted to come in here and take the oath in the face of the facts before us, you say to the country that any man, no matter if his hands are steeped in llCS' BI" blood, may come here and take his seat if he will take the oath. Sir, if you do that, you may as well repeal your oath at once; you pay no regard to it; on place the decision as to whether a man shal take a sent here under the oath upon the man himself; and if the chief of the rebels is corrupt enough to come here and swear according to the act, upon such a construction, although the oath might be false in fact and in spirit, you will be compelled to receive him. 'ou may as well remove the oath from your statute book, if that is the construction that is to be put upon it. Unwilling as I am to do anything to deprive the applicant in this case of his sent here, I see but one way to allow him to take it, and that is, to do exactlywhat we have done, dispense with that portion of the oath in his particular case, which, in m judgment, as I view the matter from my stan point, he cannot properly take.