Something of Men I Have Known | Page 7

CHAPLAINCY--MR. BLACKBURN'S SPEECH AT AN
EXECUTION--MR. COX'S READY WIT--PROCTOR KNOTT'S
ABILITY AS A LAWYER--HIS SPEECH ON DULUTH--HIS
REPLY TO HIS COMPETITOR FOR THE GOVERNORSHIP.
The forty-fourth Congress--the first of which I was a member--
assembled December 6, 1875. Among its members were many
gentlemen of distinction, some of whom had known active service in
the field. Political disabilities had been in large measure removed, and
the South was now, for the first time since the war, represented in
Congress by its old-time statesmen. Of this number may be mentioned
Mr. Stephens of Georgia, Mr. Lamar of Mississippi, and Mr. Reagan of
Texas. From the membership of this House were afterwards chosen
twenty-six Senators, ten members of the Cabinet, one Justice of the
Supreme Court, and from this and the House immediately succeeding,
three Vice-Presidents and two Presidents of the United States. The
proceedings of this Congress marked an important epoch in our history.
During its first session occurred the masterful debate upon the General
Amnesty Bill. The very depths of partisan feeling were stirred, and for
many days it was indeed a titanic struggle. The speeches attracting the
greatest attention were those of Blaine and Garfield upon the one side,
and Hill of Georgia and Lamar upon the other. This great debate
recalled vividly that of Webster and Hayne, in the other wing of the
Capitol, almost half a century before.
This session also witnessed the impeachment of a Cabinet officer,
General Belknap, Secretary of War. The trial occurred before the
Senate, sitting as a court of impeachment during the closing weeks of
the session, and resulted in his acquittal, less than two-thirds of the
Senators voting for conviction. General Belknap was represented by an
able array of counsel, chief of whom were Judge Black of Pennsylvania
and the Hon. Matthew H. Carpenter of Wisconsin. Mr. Knott of
Kentucky, Mr. Hoar of Massachusetts, and Mr. Lord of New York,

conducted the prosecution in the main as managers on the part of the
House of Representatives. The principal contention on the part of the
counsel for the accused was that there could be no conviction,
inasmuch as Belknap had resigned his office before the article of
impeachment had been preferred. This view seems to have been
decisive of the final vote of many Senators, and the accused stood
acquitted at the bar of the Senate.
When the second session of this Congress convened, in December,
1876, the excitement throughout the country was intense over the
pending Presidential contest between Hayes and Tilden. As will be
remembered, the electoral vote of two States, Louisiana and Florida,
was claimed by each of the candidates. These votes were decisive of
the result. As the days passed and the time approached for the joint
session of the Senate and the House, for the purpose of counting the
electoral votes and declaring the result, the tension became greater, and
partisan feeling more intense. The friends of Hayes were in the
majority in the Senate; those of Tilden, in the House. With conflicting
certificates, both purporting to give the correct vote from each of the
States named, and no lawful authority existing to determine as to their
validity, it can readily be seen that the situation was one to arouse the
grave apprehension of all thoughtful men. The condition was without a
precedent in our history. Twice had there been a failure to elect a
President by the people, and by constitutional provision the election in
each instance devolved upon the House. In the first-mentioned case, in
1801, Mr. Jefferson was chosen; and in the latter, in 1825, Mr. John
Quincy Adams. In neither of the cases just mentioned had there been a
question as to how any State had voted. It was simply that no person
had received a majority of all of the electoral votes cast. The method of
settlement was clearly pointed out by the Constitution. As already
indicated, the case was wholly different in the Hayes-Tilden
controversy. The question then was as to how certain States had voted.
It was for the purpose of ascertaining this fact and certifying the same
to the joint session of the Senate and House, that the Electoral
Commission was constituted. The bill having this end in view
originated in the House in January, 1877; the Commission was
constituted, and the controverted questions were soon thereafter

determined.
The Electoral Commission was an imperative necessity. As such it was
created,--consisting of five members each from the Senate, the House
of Representatives, and the Supreme Court. Its decisions were adverse
to Mr. Tilden from the beginning, and resulted in the finding that all
disputed votes should be counted for his opponent. This, it will be
remembered, gave Hayes a majority of one on the final count, and
resulted in his induction into