Mr. ARDING, of Kentucky. Now, sir, as I am noticing the condition of affairs in Kentucky, I beg the attention of gentlemen while I present the matter in some other lights. Even the little pittance promised by your law of $300 for each slave of a loyal owner who volunteered has been virtually repudiated as you all know and I do not expect it will be paid, not a dollar of it, and I do not care about it for myself. But I am speaking of what is fair and just. Property to the amount of 1,000s and millions has been taken and used by the Federal Army, indeed by the 2 armies as they passed to and fro over the State. Even those claims for property, horses, and provisions, taken from loyal men by our Arm have been refused, though they made their claims out by full proof, their loyalty backed by an oath to support the constitution, and to my knowledge claims of that sort have been sent back with a condition requiring the claimant to take an additional oath to support the emancipation policy. For the 1st time in the history of the world have honest, loyal men been required to swear to support a particular political policy or forfeit an ose their just claims. Now you have taken this property, in the form o slaves, because you said it was necessary for the common benefit; that the good of the nation required the sacrifice. But did it require that Kentucky should sacrifice 100 millions of property for your benefit? Was it right or just that you should place such a burden as that upon a State already oppressed by the consequences of the war, and refuse to bear a portion of it yourself? Surely, all must see its palpable injustice and now here is another proposition. You are not satisfied with striking own this large amount of our property in Kentucky; you want to force upon her negro political equality, or you will rob her of a part of her representation in Congress. You will never succeed in doing that. Have we not sustained losses enough already? Was it not enough that we should c exposed to all the calamities of the war, and then to lose 100 millions of property? Was not that enough? and is this proposed for the benefit of the negro? You line w it is not. If you believe that. it is, there is a way in which you can prove your belief. We will never enfranchise the negro in Kentucky. Ifyou believe it is for the benefit of the negro, then open your doors in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, and give the negro there the right to vote, and we will pay their expenses and help them on their way there. If there was any honest purpose to benefit the poor downtrodden freedmen, there would be some provision made for them in the northern States; some proposition to take them there and provide for them. Before they were freed there were enough to be found alon our borders ready to help our negroes off Nort by means of the underground railroad. Why not hel them off now they are free? Now, sir, that will not do. There is another and an intensely selfish purpose in view. You know the strong loca attachment of the negro. You know that while he has heretofore gone North, his home has been in Kentucky and other southern States. There were the scenes of his childhoods memories, there are his relations, and ou know that the consequence will be to turn the tide of negro immigration southward. Now, is there any man here who will rise above these miserable shackles of part and passion, like a stateSman and patriot, and look over this whole great coun framework of this Government. try run his eye far down the stream of time, an anticipate and provide for the wants of coming generations? ls there any man of that character here in favor of this amendment? How refreshing it would be to see some such character and spirit as was exhibited in the old Convention that framed the constitution. How this horde of constitution makers would be rebuked.