Mr. MORRILL. If the Senatorwill pardon me until I get under way a little, I will try to answer all questions. I say, then, Mr. President, from the fundamental changes which have taken place in the Constitution some amendment has been rendered necessary.to preserve its unity and to prevent unequal and unjust representation in the nation af councils. 30 Representatives, based on the provision of the Constitution for the representation of “3/5th s of all other persons, ” demand admission into the national congress, and Senators stand here to oppose, nay, denounce, as unwise, inexpedieut, and revolutionary, any amendment whatever. Why, sir, the admission of these 30 Representatives which ah based upon this principle of the Constitution, “3/5th s of tiff other persons, " means the recognition of the institution of slavery. That is dead, gone, is wholly of the past, and yet its representatives demand admission to these Halls, and we are told that no amendment of the constitution is necessary. The American congress is called upon to do that thing, or it is called upon to reform this revision of the Constitution, and adjust to the events of the times. N ow, Mr. President, the ComReconstruction, looking at this question I think wisely, undertake to adapt the nation to the events of the war. They take notice of a revolution in public affairs. marked and decisive, and which as changed the political and social system in halfthe nation, and which has Wroughta change also in the popular basis Of representation; and now propose to provide for the apportionment of representation according to the principles of the constitution, to place the question upon some basis which abs I be in harmony with the principles of the Government and what is that basis? Substantially it is this: that representation hereafter shall be based upon citizenship. That is the rule that is the implication of this amendment. Ideretofore representation was based upon free persons and upon 3/5th s Of“all other persons.” “3/5th s of all other persons” being stricken out of the constitution, the committee go upon the assumption that all are now free persons, and being free persons they are citizens, and being citizens they are entitled to representation, and, i, f any State undertakes to deny them representation, to deuythein suffrage. that State shall not represent them to that extent. In its endeavor, it is just. It is on the side of popular rights. It has an implication in it, perhaps, which is unjust; but as an endeavor, it is in the right direction. It is saying to these States, “ e recognize the principle of citizenship as the basis of representation; you must recognizeit or you must not represent those to whom you deny the right.” With this statement I justify the vote which I shall give for this amendment. I think the amendment on its face stands self justified in the situation in which we are placed. I shall proceed to examine some of the objections which are brought against the adoption of this amendment. It is said that any amendment of the Constitution in these times is unnecessary, inexpedient, and unwise. There are a class of Senators here and a class of persons through out the country who denounce all amendments of the Constitution at the present time as unwise and in dicious. We are told these are not times suitet to an amendment of the fundamental law. I have already adverted to some of the facts which I think justify the conclusion that an amendment of the Constitution is our necessity; that to adjust the nation to the great events of the war it has become necessary to amend its Constitution and its general code of laws. But to those who make this objection let it suffice to say that the Constitution contemplates its own amendment, provides for it, and it has been of fre nent occurrence. But, Mr. Presient, I do not forget the his to of the ast few years. I do not forget. hat within the ast 5 years a class of statesmen and politicians, who now resist all proposition: for an amendment of the Constitution, here and elsewhere urged and demanded amend. merits of the Constitution of the nation. What were the circumstances then? Several State threatened to dissolve this Union. Several States had taken an attitude hostile to the Government of the country. The demanded the extension, the protection, an the perpet uation of slavery: and upon that question the country was divided. "lien amendments to the Constitution were proposed without num her here, elsewhere, and everywhere. Amendments to the Constitution seemed to be the order of the day. To what end, and for what purpose? To increase the power in the hands of the few who wielded the political power in those States and who were demanding it. What is the question today? It is the same question precisely in another form. They brought on civilWar, rebellion, and insurrection. They have been defeated. The institution of slavery has passed away in form, but it still lives in spirit. It stalks the earth in power. It comes to your Halls and demands admission. It abates not one jot of its power and force. It not only demands admission with the strength that it had when the war began, but it demands that its strength shall be increased by 2/5ths of its former slave population; that its political power in congress shall be augmented by 2/5ths. The slaves, 3/5th s of whom are represented are to be stricken out of the Constitution an are to be given to the great body of the ameri can people and counted as numbers, for that is the rule, it is contended. On such basis of representation. then, by the rebellion the South has not only lost nothing, but in the scale of political power those who were capable of being the enemies of the nation, and may be ain, have added to their strength 2/5ths. Ihst is the proposition you have to meet, sir. Is it not plain that the national security demands that this proposition should be adopted ( But yesterday we had an additional reason, a reason which I did not antincipat, given why this amendment should notbe adopted, and that was that it was wholly unnecessary, because, it was said, by the events which were transpiring in the country in regard to the recent slave population there need be no a prehension of e“xcess of representation base on the whole numbers” instead of 3/5th s, from the important fact that they were passing away. If Igather the force of that argument, it is this: we are to base no legislation and no action upon the idea that this race, recently slave, now free, is part and parcel of the American people. the object of our care, solicitude, and protection; they are passing away, dying; let t iem he rep presented as slaves now, and let them never enter into the basis hereafter of the representative system. Sir, that is the old argument, an argument worthy of another period than this. Cur people have been an inexorable people in some respects in regard to the races that have been within their power. In the march of our civilization across the continent, the iron heel of that civilization has rested upon the Indian, and he is passing away. We seem to contemplate the probable extinction of the Indians from our limits with comosure. He is a nomad; he is a savage; he is a barbarian; he is not within our morals or our code of law; he is not within the pale of the Constitution, but flits upon the verge of it outside our protection, the subject of our caprices, and sometimes, I think, of our avarice. and, now, if any consequence is to be attached toythe remark of the honorable Senfrom Wisconsin [Mr. DOOLITTLE] yesterday, this “inferior race” is not to be the subject of our solicitude: they. too, are nassiniz. away; it is not worth while to change your constitution in regard to them; let them be represented as 2/5ths slaves on the old basis until they shall have perished, and then your constitution will need no amendment. The laws of a fearful antagonism of sufferior and inferior races are expected to accomplish what, if Amer ican statesmanship does not incite, it contemplates with a parent resignation. Mr. Presient, I hail with something like a sense of gratitude the proposition of the ComReconstruction, because it recognizes at least the great fundamental principle of American constitutional law and iberty, that representation in the national councils ought to be based on citizenship, and so far as the national councils are concerned it shall rest nowhere else. That is the significance of this proposition. Contemplating it in that view I content myself to vote for it, although I think it inadequate to the immediate exigency of the times. I would much prefer to say to these States, “ If you desire to be represented at all in these Halls you shall do equal and exact justice to all the citizens of the U.S., without regard to color.” That is the mandate that should go forth from these Halls. That is the equal and exact justice which this nation should hold out to these men, but re cently the enemies of the nation in arms, before they should be permitted to set their feet in these Chambers to representthemselves. But sir, it would shock the sense of the nation, an I am sure it would shock the sense of justice of mankind, if the American Congress were to allow these people to come here restored to authority and represent the old system of slavery, now dead and buried, and in addition to that allow them a full representation accordin to the numbers of a race to whom they deny a privileges and rights. But it is said that an amendment of the constitution, such as is proposed, is inexpedient at this time. 11 States, we are told, are demanding seats u n this floor, and are impJatient of delay. he honorable Senfrom Delaware [Mr. Saunsauar] the other day became plaintive over the condition of these people and States. He told us their situation was one of suffering and desolation; that they needed representation here; and that they were anxious to be represented upon this floor. That, I submit, sir, is not the highest consideration for the action of the Senate. There are subjects lying back of the desires of these States necessary to be considered. I shall not under take to recapitulate in detail what has been said by those who, on that side, have addressed themselves to this subject in behalf of these States; but we have been told that it is for the interest of the nation to receive these States into the Union, and that they should be represented on the floors of the two Houses of Congress; that that is the national necessity, higher than any other consideration, higher than that of representation or adjustment of representation, higher than that of protection to the freedmen, higher than that of national justice. We are told that the great political necessity of the times is the admission of these States now, unqualifiedly, without hesitation, and without the judgment or action of congress. In language quite significant, passionate sometimes, you have been told that these States must be admitted now or hereafter as they are. In the language of the Senfrom Kentucky, [ML GUTnsIs] “ you will have to admit these States, or do worse.” To all such passionate inventive I have just one reply, and that is, the actual and legal condition of these States is that of “ insurrection ary States.” That is their legal designation that is their legal status. The Congress of the U.S., the high legislative power of the nation, the supreme war power of the country, the Executive included, gave them the des ignation of insurrectionary States. They have been moreoverregarded by theIworld for the last 4 or 5 years as belligerent States. When Congress adjourned here last year that was their condition. It returned to find them here knockin at the doors of Congress, as it was said, witg their representation, for admission into the councils of the nation. Now, sir, if that state of things has been changed, how and upon what authority has it been changed? When the war power of the Government had overcome the rebel forces, at the surrender of the rebel forces, overcome by the war of the nation, what was the condition of eee States? GenlSherman . acting as he supposed within the scope of his military functions, undertook to recognize these States as existiThose who remember his military memoran am will remember that according to the provisions of that memorandum these States were to be recognized as in existence; all the odicers of the States were to be restored to their odices upon taking the oath to support the constitution of the U.S., and their privileges and their franchises were to be recognized and guarantied to the people of these States; but what was the result? be POTUS repudiated it at once. The President held, and old properly, and so did his Cabinet, and so did the country; that these States did not exist as States in the Union; the did not exist civill; their governments ha been subverted. y rebellion and civilWar they had abdicated civil authority; their State governments had been overthrown, and therefore GenlSherman s memorandum, which would have recognized them, and which would perhaps have brought them upon this floor as States, was repudiated utterly and entirely. The POTUS very properly and very patriotically held that the proposition that these States were States of the men, having civil or political existence now that they had laid down their arms, was not a prosition to be entertained anywhere; that their State governments had been overthrown; they were out of their relations with the Union; they were disorganized. The President went further. When the civil authorities in the rebel State of Virginia undertook to exercise authority, he warned them that such assumption would betreated as usur pation, and they would be held to the strictest accountability by the military authorities of the U.S. for any attempt to exercise any civil function in the State of Virginia. GenlSherman was thus given to understand, and very properly, that he did notunderstand the great political questions which underlaid the war. It was wel enough for him to re ceive the surrender of the rebel army, but he could not, as a military commander, make terms for the restoration of States and the Union, and by which the authority of those States could be recognized. The President treated their State governments as having been overthrown; that there was no civil officer in all the South who could perform civil functions of any kind whatever. The States and the pee 10were held to be in a state of absolute civi and political disability. That being the condition of the whole southern country, will anybody show me how it came to pass that these States were resurrected, that these States were “organized, ” that these States were reconstructed in the absence of Congress and of legislation upon the subject? What were the Presidents functions? These States, on his view of their condition, had lost their State governments; there were no civil officers, and there could be no political or civil functions. What was his authority? How was be acting? Of course in the double capacity of POTUS, sworn to maintain the laws and protect the Constitution, and as Commander in Chief of the Army and the Navy. As POTUS, of course he could only enforce the law; but there was no law on the subject. Congress had passed an act providing for the contingency p which had arisen now, but it had failed to become a law; and as to the reconstruction of States there was no law; the nation was with outlaw. Congress had never provided for such a case, and therefore there was no law to execute. The only capacity, therefore, in which the President conl act was in that of commander in Chief of the Army. Will it be pretended that as Commander in Chief of the armies of the U.S. the President had any authority to reconstruct States, or, to use his own language, to “organize” States? Not at all. The organizationof states was civil and legislative in its character purely. Now, lookingto results, what was accomplished in those States? Substantially, I submit, what was r diated in Major GenlSherman s plan. o day, substantially as a matter of fact, these States are restored, if at all, to the same status to which they were proposed to be restored by the memorandum of Major GenlSherman . What was done? Major GenlSherman proposed to recognize those States on the condition that the officers should take the oath to support the Constitution of the U.S. The condition, it will be observed, was an oath to support the Constitution. Governor Perry was authorized to “ organize" the State of SCarolina, for example, on the condition of an oath to supportthe Constitution, including other things. Both were by military authority, and rest on the basis of an oath. GenlSherman s plan contemplated the recognition of the officers of the State upon taking the oath to support the Constitution, and Governor Perry actuall re stored the officers of the State of South are lint:1 to their offices upon taking the prescribed oat. It is needless to say that whatever the President did in regard to these States was necessarily a military act. My honorable friendfrom Wisconsin [Mr. DOOLXHLE] undertook to explain this policy, and to tell the Senateas near as he cond what were the functions of Governor Perry. He said they were not exactly those of a provisional governor; but he was called a “ revisional governor” by the President. e said he was not exact] a military officer, for he was not coinmissione thereunto, and could not be without the consent of the Senate; but he was in the nature of a negotiator to negotiate terms of peace. Our case required no negotiation an admitted of no negotiation. This wasn civilWar, and the Government of the U.S. were proceeding against the States we ng war upon them, upon the ground that t cy were “insurrectionary States, ” and must be overcome, and the insurgents dispersed, subjugated, subdued, coerced, and not upon the ground that they were to be negotiat with. The truth is, the honorable Senfrom Wisconsin undertakes to apologize for an act which he cannot justify, and which he finds no warrant either in the law or the Constitution to authorize. If he was not a “provisional governor, ” then he could not exercise a civil function. If he was a military governor, then he must have his commission; and as he had neither, he had no office, and could have no function; and that was the condition of governor Perry. He was an ent, but a military agent, without authorit of law anywhere; and the fruit of his labor O course must be irregular. The best that can be said of these States which we are demanded to admit here without consideration and without discretion is, that they are mili States. At the close of armed rebellion they had no organization. If they have any now, it is a military organization, an organization which Congress cannot recognize. which Congress cannot respect; an organizntion which needs the ratification of the cgislative authority to make valid. I do not criticise these proceedings to complain of them. It was the province of the President to or niza military Depts or governments in a ltbat section of t a nation that had at length surrendered to its military authority. He might the mode and employ the agents whicahdopet deemed best suited to the end. As Commander in Chief, he could hold such governments subject to his military power, as he did still continue to do, until the supreme legislative power of the nation should make provision for the case. But could he, as POTUS, chief ExecutiveZ invest these States with the litical and ciVil rights of “ sovereign States" in the Union, and at the same time irifld them subject wholly to his power as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy? If they are American States in the Union, only lacking representation in Congress, with Governors, Legislatures, and courts, their civil authority restored, on what ground is it that these governors, Legislatures, and courts are held subor dinate to the power of the commanders of military Depts; and on what ound is it that the constitutions and laws of those States are set aside and annulled by military orders of the commanding generals? It is that the war is not over; not so been adjudged. The military authority of the President is supreme; the volunteers enlisted for the war not yet permitted to return to their homes; the laws are not yet supreme; and the insurrectionary States have not yet been restored to those relations with the nation essential to peace and repose hy the supreme legislative authority. Yow, Mr. President, it is contended that this proposed amendment to the Constitution violates the great American rule of representstion embraced in the Constitution, which rule is defined to be “representation according to numbers." I allude now to the argument of the honorable Senfrom Maryland, [ML understand his proposition and his reasoning, there are no longer “other persons” mentioned in the Constitution, 3 fths of whom constituted a part of the basis of representation. His next postulate is, that these slaves have become free men, and being free men, are citizens. I will read an extract from the honorable Senators speech, in which his view on that subject is much better stated than I could state it: “Now. as fare? relatesto the quotaof taxation, or as far as relat to the quotu of representation.the state of things is materially changed. There are no men.so to speak, who are but 3/5th s men. We all stand upon the sameplatform. As wecame.from naturesGod. westand togpthar upon aii equality as far as relates to human rights, and it was entirely unnecessary thereforo.to change tha mode of apportioning representation or of apportionip taxation except for someother purpose which did not enter into the estimation of the wise and good men bywhom the Constitutionwas adoptedin recommending this particular provision." This argument proceeds, 1st, upon the as sumption that the “other persons no longer constitute the basis of representation, and that those “ other persons, ” by the change in the Constitution reeing the slaves, have become free men, and being free men are citizens, and being citizens are entitledto representation. I assume that to be the method of the argument. It is difficult for me to see that there could be any other. The difficulty in the proposition is that “ the assumed factis not conceded to be the fact." Who as s that these slaves ceasing to be slaves become ree men? I know the honorable Senfrom Maryland says so, and it does him great credit; but what is the fact in the States that are interested in this question? Do they say it? No, sir. They he (1 that when they ceased to be slaves they merely became “ freedmen, ” simply not slaves. But were they invested with political rights and privileges? Not at all. Were they free men? Not a bit of it. Were they citizens? The last thin in the world. They are freedmen simply; and theirargument is that according to all law and usage, ancient and modern, the simple act of freeing a slave, if you O no further, does notinvest him thereb with a l the rights, civil and political, and with all the immunities of the community in which he happens to be. What, then, is the condition of these “freedmen” in these States? They l hold them today as altogether outside of the objects of society. They say they never were American citizens. They are Africa in America; that is all; they are not citizens; they are not free men; they have no right whateverwhich that community is bound to respect; they are more than ever beyond the pale and protection of the Constitution; they have not even a master to serve with an interest in his service to care for his physical condition. Sir, it does not follow by any means that these men who were slaves are free men, but according to the whole code of the South morals, laws, and constitutions of the South the very structure of its society, civil, social, and political, they are outside of the pale of society, outside of the pale of the Constitution. They are not members of the body politic in any sense whatever. They are nomadic in their relations. They are as if but wandering tribes. They are, in the sense of the Constitution, “Indians not taxed, ” within the limits for whom we are not responsible, to whom we owe no duty and no protection whatever, and they have abundant authority upon this subject, the highest authority in the country. The Supreme Court of the country has determined, according to the history and according to the polities of the country, that they were never designed to be embraced within the pale of the Constitution, they never belonged to the governing class, were not of the American people, and now they maintain that that people are not entitled to the rights, privileges, and immunities of citizens of the U.S. I meet the honorable Senator upon his proposition, and I maintain thatit fails utterly an wholly, because, as the matter stands, the freedman is in the power and under the control of those states. They deny his citizenship, claim to determine his status, civil and political, and so far are upheld in it by the nation, and the Senator does not repose to interfere. The honorable Senator talks humanely, as he always does, but he talks to no effectwhen he talks upon this proposition that these people, ceasing to be slaves, become American citizens, and then turns them over to the communities in which they are, and upon which they are dependent, and by whom to be governed and adjudged, and especially when he holds that interference on the part of Congress would be a violation of State rights and revolutionary.