Of course, in this debate something is assumed. It is simply this: that the evidence touching the loyalty of the claimant is not valueless; that it merits attention; that it affords _probable cause_, if I may adopt the phrase of the Roman Law, for distrust; that it is enough to put a party on the defensive. If this be the case, if all these affidavits, verified by the certificate so numerously signed, are not put aside as baseless, then the Senate must inquire into the charge. The result of the inquiry may be one way or another; but the inquiry must be made. Not to make it is abandonment of present duty; and not to assert the power is abandonment of an essential right of self-defence. I have listened to the various arguments pressing the Senate to disarm itself, as they have been presented by able Senators, especially by the Senator from Maine [Mr. FESSENDEN] and the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. HOWE]; and I have felt, as I listened, new confidence in the constitutional power of the Senate to protect itself at all times against disloyalty, and in the duty to exercise this constitutional power at any time, early or late, in its completest discretion. But it is said,--and I believe the Senator from Maine first presented this argument, which has been urged so strongly by the Senator from Wisconsin,--that, if we reject the present claimant, Oregon will be without a representative. And if we expel him, will not Oregon be without a representative? Surely this is no reason for hesitation in either case. I, too, desire a representative for Oregon; but I know full well that a disloyal representative is no representative,--or rather, Sir, is worse than no representative. In sustaining such a representative, you sacrifice substance to form,--you abandon the living principle, content with the dead letter,--you “keep the word of promise to the ear, and break it to the hope,”--you offer to the people of Oregon a stone, when they demand bread. In the name of the people of Oregon, whose wishes are manifest in the papers before us, I protest against the pretension that they can be represented by a disloyal person. Misrepresentation is not and never can be representation. But it is said,--and I believe the Senator from Maine made the argument,--that the evidence against the claimant, if sustained, might justify expulsion, but will not justify refusal of admission to take the oath. MR. FESSENDEN. The Senator will state my position as I put it, and that was, if the same language and declarations were proved as coming from Mr. Stark while a Senator, I thought they might justify his expulsion.