{ 57} This was the situation in the last week of February, 1866, when the Senate passed a resolution, concurrent with the Stevens resolution in the House, denying seats to any of the claimants from the "States" lately in insurrection until the report of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction should be made and finally acted upon. Four of the Republican Senators, Messrs. Cowan, Doolittle, Dixon and Norton went against their party associates in this question, but there was still a two-thirds majority in both Houses resolute and resolved to combat the Presidential plan of Reconstruction and to construct and enforce a Congressional plan.
[Sidenote: The Joint Committee of the two houses of Congress on Reconstruction.]
As we have already seen, the Senate had concurred with the House in regard to that part of the Stevens resolution which provided for the appointment of a Joint Committee on Reconstruction, at the time it was passed by the House. The members of the Committee were chosen soon after the passage of this part of the Stevens resolution by the Senate. They were, from the Senate, Messrs. Fessenden, Grimes, Harris, Howard, Johnson and Williams, all Republicans except Mr. Reverdy Johnson of Maryland, and from the House, Messrs. Bingham, Blow, Boutwell, Conkling, Grider, Morrill, Rogers, Stevens and Washburne, all Republicans except Grider of Kentucky and Rogers of New Jersey. The Republicans had given themselves a larger representation on the Committee than their numerical relation to the Democrats warranted, but there is no reason to think that the report of the majority would have been in any respect different, if that relation had been more strictly observed.
[Sidenote: The activity of Congress in the interim between the appointment of the Committee on Reconstruction and the Report of the Committee.]
This Committee sat for about six months before making its final report. During this period, however, several propositions issued from it, and two great { 58} measures of statute law were passed by Congress, all of which must be more nearly considered in order to keep the thread of the narrative of Reconstruction. Moreover the debate upon the subject of Reconstruction was at the same time in progress and the view of the subject held by the leading Republicans was becoming more clear and fixed.