Mr. WARD, of Kentucky. I have always understood that he came from Indiana. [Roars of laughter.] Mr. Speaker, the proposition under consideration not only proposes to dissolve the Union, but it proposes to dissolve it prospectively and indefinitely: it not only proposes to break up the Union now, but it proposes to lay the foundation for breaking it up indefinitely hereafter. It is assumed that the majority of Congress can do pretty nearly everything. I thought when I came here, having occasionally read the constitution of my country, that the Constitution of the U.S., like the fiat of the Great Creator of the universe, who, when He divided the sea from the land, said to the sea “Thus far shalt thou come, and no further”—I thought the Constitution of the U.S. absolutely restricted the power of legislation; yet some gentlemen here seem to think they can do almost everything. They assume that they cannot only expel ten States from the Union at one blow, but also lay the foundation for their indefinite exclusion at the pleasure of the majority of any future Congress. There is a provision in this very bill which says that if the right of suffrage and any other rights be in any manner restricted or denied by any of these States to the negro then that State shall be excluded from its representation upon the floor of Congress. Is it possible that such a precedent as that is to be established here? suppose that the majority should be the other way, and not be, as it is now, in favor of NewEngland and NewEngland ideas. NewEng land is now the largest slave owner in the world, and under your tariff system all of the other States are her tributaries. These southern States are not considered republican in form because they once held slaves. And NewEngland leads the van in this war upon the southern people. Yet NewEngland to day claims to own ten or 12 million white slaves; and the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. Sej says she obtained them by conguest. Now, is it possible that a free re H. can fight to make ten or 12 milion people slaves and still be a free government? Can a republic make ten or 12 millions of its own citizens slaves by conquest? No, sir; to do that would be simply an act of suicide. Suppose, then, that there should be a majority here that would differ with the present majority in this House; and suppose they should undertake to say that NewEngland, having at this particular juncture of affairs claimed to be the owner of ten or 12 million white people, and, therefore, her government was not republican in form, and therefore that a majority in Congress should. “You must walk out!” that Congress would have as much right to turn her 6 States out as you have to say these ten southern States are out now. I ask gentlemen to pause before they indulge in this kind of legislation. What are to be its effects upon the country? You undertake to hold these people in bondage, at an expense of one, two, or 300 million dollars per annum. You establish a system of martial law. I believe the estimates of the Army and Navy reach about 100 million dollars for the current year. If you carry out your system of martial law and suspension of the habeascorpus and your negro governments at the South, you will need at least $250,000,000 annually. I ask you whether the toiling millions of this nation are prepared to pay $250,000,000 per annum for the exceeding great luxury of holding our own countrymen in bond age, and this, too, while a national debt of about 3,000 million dollars is hanging like a millstone round the nation's neck, and the people already overburdened with taxation to pay it? Can this scheme be carried out in the critical condition and peculiar character of the currency? What sort of a currency have you? About 300 million dollars of the circulation of the national banks, based upon what? Simply upon the nation's promises to pay, the interest which the Government pays upon its bonds being the only metal that enters into the arrangement. 300 million dollars of circulation, and a few pitiful 1000s upon which to sustain it! Why, sir, here you have a pyramid inverted, with an exceedingly narrow apex. What upholds it?. Nothing but the atmosphere of popular confidence in the public credit. Carry out your revolutionary schemes; pursue, your experiments with the liberties of the white people of this country, at the expense of 2 or 300 million dollars per annum, and I ask you how the people can be expected to have confidence in your credit. Suppose this fabric topples over, what becomes of the Government securities? Your bonds become worthless; all the material interests of the country are damaged and almost destroyed. Yet gentlemen are asking us to pass this bill under the idea that it makes the Government a perfected Republic. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this whole system of legislation which has for its object retaliation and vengeance. The nation cannot afford to indulge in it. It is too expen sive, not only in money, but it may cost the whole nation its safety. I implore gentlemen to abandon it. It is said by the distinguished gentleman who proposes this bill that, if we regard this measure as one of punishment, these people have deserved it. Gentlemen are all the time saying that treason must be made odious. They cling to the idea of punishment. It seems to me that war—a civilWar like that through which we have passed—brings its own punishment. What more do you want than the punishment which the war has inflicted? The commerce of the southern people has been destroyed; their towns and cities have been burned; their fields desolated and stained with blood; wives have been widowed and children made orphans; and amid the desolation they are threatened with famine and crying for bread. Yet gentlemen soy, “Revenge, cru cify, punish—still punish.’ “Alas, for the rarity. Of Christian charity Under the sum!” These.4%for bread, and you give them vengeance. "You not only refuse to feed the body—you absolutely refuse to feed their minds. A few days ago there was passed in this House a resolution denying to the States lately engaged in the rebellion the scrip that was appropriated by Congress to educate the children.. “God said, ‘Let there be light!’” but this House says, by its vote, “Let dark ness prevail!”. You are in favor of darkness, because you shut out intellectual light. You propose to “make treason odious” by punish:ing the poor children and shutting the E. of education from their minds. I ask gentlemen whether they expect to restore the Union by such legislation. Why, this is only one specimen of it. In my own State, and in the other border States, commissioners have been appointed by this Government to value the slaves that were enlisted in the Army of the U.S. By a bill which has recently passed both Houses of Congress those commissioners are to be suspended in the exercise of their functions, the money is to be held, and the obligation, I suppose, finally repudiated. It seems to me repudiation—nothing but repudiation; although this House, in conjunction with the Senate, originally passed a law, before the negroes were enlisted, proposing to pay their former masters for them, they did it by solemn enactment, and afterward, at the last session I believe they reenacted the law and said it should be paid to the loyal owners. But now what have you done? hen you want to up hold the nation's credit, when you want to restore the confidence of the public, youset the example of repudiation. A great nation Cannot P. its respectability among nations unless it pays all of its just debts. “Pay what thou owest” is the law of God and the law of the land. The nation ought to pay, and ought not to set the example of repudiation. gentlemen on that subject. If you expect the people to be satisfied with the Government and uphold it, if you will make it strong and make peace permanent, you must not commence by repudiating what you owe the people of certain States and then turn round and tax them for what is due to you. You must pay all justly and fairly, or else repudiate all. The laws of the land must be executed fairly and justly; and I hope this House will reconsider that subject, and in some shape reassert its purpose to pay what it 3. our people whose slaves enlisted in the rmy. Mr. Speaker, I have experienced some difficulty in making myself heard on account of severe cold. hoarseness; but I felt constrained by an imperative sense of duty to enter my solemn protest against the passage of this bill, believing as I do that if the provisions of this measure and others now pending in this Congress of a similar character be carried out the nation's credit must be destroyed, the Government securities rendered worthless, and the stability of the Government rendered so uncertain that capital will seek a safer place of investment, and I greatly fear that our free Republic, of which we have all felt so proud, will be converted into a military despotism at no distant day. Mr. Speaker, I promised to give my friendfrom Ohio [Mr. Le BLonD1 a few minutes of my time, which I now cheerfully yield to him.