Mr. SCHENCK. I believe I must resume the floor. The gentleman asked me for one minute and I have given him two. Mr. Speaker, I have no prepared speech upon this very grave subject which we have now under discussion; and it is very possible that I shall not occupy nearly the whole of the 30 minutes allowe( me by the rule which has been adopted. Still, I desire that whatever I may say upon the sin le point to which I propose to confine mysel may be said without interruption; and I hope gentlemen will take this as a notice to permit me to proceed in my own way to develop whatever idea I may have, if I have a clear one upon the subject at all. Ishall not spealfof this proposed constitutional amendment at large. I should not have s oken with reference to it at all, at least at this time, but for the point which has been made in reference to a single one of its provisions. Ohjection is specially made to the 3rd section, as it stands in the report of the committee. That section, as proposed to be incorporated into the organic law of the U.S., is in these words: Until the 4th day of July, in the your 1870.allpersonswho voluntarily adheredto the lateinsurrection. giving it aid and comfort, shall be exuluded from the right to vote for Representativesin Congressand for electorsfor President and VEEP I do not say, Mr. Speaker, that this section, any more than other sections of the amendment, is embodied precisely in the language which I would have used, or indicates precise 5 the change in the Constitution which I would have preferred, had the choice rested solely with me. But I am bound, like all other Gentlemen, to submit my peculiar opinions in ref erence to this amendment, and every point and proposition which it contains, to what may seem to be the common ense of this House and of Congress, so that we may together arrive at what may seem to be nearest right, and yet capable of being agreed upon by all of us, or by a propermajority. I shall tierefore raise now no question of criticism, nor insist upon the language which I would have used, or the form which I would have preferred in presenting a similar or equivalent proposition. The objection which has been made by the Gentfrom Maine [Mr. BLAINE] to that particular feature of this amendment, is, as I understand him, this, that it seems to conflict with previous legislation of Congress which authorized the President to grant pardon or amnesty to those who had been engaged in the insurrection, and that now, after pardon or amnesty, proclaimed either to individuals or classes, it seems an act of bad faith to punish further and again by dening the right of the elective franchise to any of these men who have been aiding and abetting the rebellion. I state the objection, I think, in the broadest and full est extent to which it seems to go, and with all the force with which it seems to have struck the mAtind of my friendfrom Maine, [Mr. Bums] 1st it does seem to be a starth ng proposition. On the surface it would appear as if there was some bad faith in granting amnesty, in pardoning, and yet, as it were, still pursuing these insurgents and depriving them of certain privileges as additional unisment. If I understood this to be punisment, if I understood it to be a penalty imposed on them, de priving them of nghts which they now enjoy, would agree to the proposition made by the Gentfrom Maine, and say that there is an in consistency between the former action of congress and the executive clemency exercised in carrying out the authority given by Congress, and that which is now proposed in the shape of amendment to your Constitution. But, sir, I do not regard it in that light, and it is for the purpose of showing wherein it struck me did crently that I propose for a few minutes to occupy the attention of the House. Sir, the people of this country and those controlling the interests of the country now in offieial capacity are strugglin between 2 ideas, more or less clearly dehned on either side, and influencing the action of those who es House them. There is, on one hand, whatis ca led the Presidents theory for reconstruction of the States, and on the other what may be termed the congressional theory. As I understand the idea of the POTUS, although his “policy” and his practice I must say on this very subecthave been by no means consistent it is t is, that the States which have been in rebellion are now as much as any States of this Union, in full, complete, and equal relation to all the other States; that their rights are in all respects the same; that among these rights is included the privilege of unquestioned representation here in the councils of the nation, and that to shutthem out from the enjoymeht of this is to do them, therefore, absolute wrong. Now, sir, I will not stop to inquire when that right attached. I will not sto to inquire whether the argument which won d prove that proposition would not equally well prove that allt rough the rebellion, inasmuch as secession was a void act these States and their people were fully and completely possessed of all rights in the Union, and therefore entitled to representation as now. I do not see where the arment is to stop. If the proposition be vtrue, then at any time during the regress of the rebellion Virginia might have e ected Rob ert E. Lee a Senator to represent that State and her sovereignty at the other end of the Ca itol, or any of those men who were serving under him as chiefs of division and brigade to represent districts here upon this floor; and to have excluded them would have been to take away the right of Virginia and of the people of Virginia to be represented in either ranch of congress and RobtELee and other such aretraiters could have appeared here on the floor of Congress and spent their winter in obstructing legislation intended for the purpose of aiding the executive and war making power in putting down the rebellion, and whenever the spring opened and they were read for another campaign, might have taken the eld in order by force of arms to attempt the destruction of the Government for which they legislated! Monstrous absurdity l Iwill not sto, however, to ask when the time came, at what date the States were entirely and thoroughly and completely restored to thatequal relation, because I do not believe they hadI any such equal, complete, normal relation as they once enjoyed while they were States in full communion with the rest of the Union. If I believed it, if I admitted that theory as to the present condition of the States, then it would follow with me necessarily that I should regard these people as having the right to vote for electors of resident and VEEP and for members of Congress, and if they possessed this right, then to take away, from them, either by statute law or organic law, the due exercise of it, w.ould be imosing on them a penalty and punishment in addition to anything else they may have before been de rived O. ejecting this presidential theory, as it may be termed, Icome then to the congressional theo on this subject. I will not stop to go into the inquiry whether these States have ever been out of the Union or not. I do not believe they ever have. I do not subscribe to the doctrine of their having been reduced to the condition of Territories m the sense in which many understand it. I believe we had the right to subdue them, and subject them to obedience precisely upon the same principle on which a father punishes his own child when he has misbehaved. He thrashes his wicked and graceless son because he is his son, and not the child of a stranger. I believe we have a like right to inflict punishment on these rebellious States. In the domestic circle we shut the crring child up in a darkv closet, or put him pouting in a corner, and keep him in disgrace away from the table, surrounded by the rest of the inmates of the family, until he has completely, and to our satisfaction, shown by penitence and a manifestation of a proor disposition that he means to deport himse f better in the future; and no such sinning child has a right to complain of the disci line which keeps him in a place where he has by bad conduct put himself until he returns to good behavior. But to the congressional theory. I understand it to be this: that these rebellious States have of themselves, as far as they have the power to do so, broken away from their nor mal and properrelations to the rest of the States; thatwhentheythusbrokeaway thou by they did not release themselves from their O ligations, they forfeited certain rights, and among others, after refusing to be represented here, disclaiming their allegiance an denying their connection through representation with the rest of the States, they forfeited that right of representation and cannot regain it until it is ro erly and by law restored. find) I understand, further, the theo to be that they can be properly restored onlyrby law, and that until a law is enacted by which any State that has thus flungitself out of its properrelations to the Union is permitted to come back and stand upon a footing with other States and enjoy its representation here, such richt of representation cannot be regained by that State. Now, if this be the true theory, as I think it is, then I have no difficulty on account of the objection made by the Gentfrom Maine, Mr. BLAINE] because if those States have nng away their right of representation, if they have forfeited by their misehavidr their right to claim their old, normal, formerly existing relation to the rest of the States, it is to be a work of subsequent enactment when and upon what conditions such rights and relations shall be restored to them. Fully believing this, I aver that there is nothing that should be regarded as penalty or punishment in this 3rd section of the proposed amendment. It takes nothing away from the people of those States. It oes not disfranchise, but refuses to enfranchise. If you say that the people of these States, because of their having been envaged in the rebellion, shall not vote for Fedora officers, there is nothing taken from them, because they have already divested themselves of that privilege, voluntarily aban doned, given it up, flung it away by breaking loose from the rest of the Union, as far as by their act, disposition, and power they could O so. These States, then are not in the condition in which Ohio and Pennsylvania are. If we should pass a statute, or undertake tdamend our Constitution so as to make a discrimination between the States of Ohio and Pennsylvania and the other States of the Union, saying that certain persons in those loyal States shall not enjoy and exercise the elective franchise, either through entire time hereafter or through a probationary term, a limited period, we do a wrong to those States; because Ohio and Pennsylvania and the citizens of those States have not already disfranchised themselves and wickedly and madly thrust their privileges and rights away. But the rebel States are in an entirely different condition. They have divested themselves, by breaking up the normal relations existing between them and the other States, of the privilege, and their people at this time have no right to vote for President or members of congress; and if they can only be restored as States, as reorganize communities, as a people, by our action, to the enjoyment of those rights, then the very fact that we have the power by statute law or amendment to the Constitution thus to restore them, involves the furtherproposition that their restoration must be upon such conditions and such terms as we shallprescribe. I might liken this to the institution of property. I cannot, by statute law or by an alteration of the organic law of the land, ivest a man of property which he actually owns without doing hima wron. Iflie has violated law and subjected himselgto punishment, what he has may be reached by fine or confiscation. But suppose him to have no property, and the case is very different. When we are making laws, giving the original authority upon which property is to be obtained and held, surely it may be stipulated that such and such terms are to be complied with or such and such duties performed as the conditions on which the privilege of acquiring that property shall exist. I would not take away from anyone the elective franchise which he now enjoys. If I did, then would I be acting in bad faith, as the Gentfrom Maine agprehends. I simply say to rebels, your pardo or amnesty only related to the crime you had committed, and so far as that crime tainted your character or affected our future you are purged of it by that ar on or amnesty. But as to anything which you have already divested yourself of, which you do not now oWn or enjoy, and which on wish hereafter to acquire or, having had it once and lost it, desire to have restored to you, I will impose such conditions by statute or organic law as will determine on what principles, in what way, and at what time you shall get it back. I But, sir, somewhat to my surprise. because, as I suppose, it does not appear to him as it does to me, but a consistent part of the course of legislation in which we are endeavoring here to engage, my honored colleague [Mr. GARFIELD? proposes to get rid of this entire section, and to instruct the committee, in case the amendment be recommitted, to erase it alto cther and he assi us one or 2 other objections to it, upon which I will for a moment comment. He says that he would be willing to have a proposition of this nature embodied in the constitutional amendment if, instead of disenfranchising these insurgents until 1870, it disfsauchises them perpetual 1y. Well, sir. I will not stop to inquire whether that would be going beyond the expectations, of the people and beyond our duty or not. I should not, probably, quarrel with my colleague if he could add ten, 15, or 20 years or even a longer period to the term of probation. But I denyt e principle on which e sets out that there is anything inconsistent or wrong in making it an exclusmn for a term of years instead of exclusion altogether. If there be anything in that argument, you ought not to send a man to an insane asylum for one, 2, or 3 years, at the end of which period you mag reasonably expect his intellect to be restore; you ought either to let him team at large altogether or send him off as a lunatic for life. Or, in the case of crime, you must either not sentence a man to the penitentiary at all, or else incarcerate him for the term of his not ural life. Or, to compare it to another thin. which perhaps better illustrates the princip 9 involved, when a foreigner arrives upon our shores we should not say to him, “ At the end of 5 years, when you have familiarized your self with our institutions, and become attached to them, we willallow you to become a citizen, and admit you to all the franchises we enjoy, ” but we should require that he be naturalized the moment he touches our soil, or else excluded from the rights of citizenship forever. Sir, I do not see that there is any principle involved in it. It is a mere question of eXpe diency. It has also been objected that it is exceptionable to incorporate into the Constitution any condition depending on lapse of time or a term of years a period within or beyond which something is to be allowed or denied; and this is said to he, therefore, altogether a novel and unprecedented reposition. Sir, I deny even that. Any gentleman familiar with the constitution will recall the provision that the slave trade. existing at the time of its adoption, should be permitted to run on for 20 years, but might be forbidden at the end at that time. There is no principle violated, nothing which should prevent us from making the exclusion for 2, 3, 4,ten, or 20 years, or during the natural lives of these insurgents, who seek to be admitted again to the exercise of the elective franchise. Mr. Speaker, my own decided conviction is, that so ar from going beyond the popular judgment and demand there is no part of all this amendment that will more commend itself to the sense of justice and propriety of the pee pzle of this country than this very 3rd section. verywhere throughout the land, in all loyal minds and hearts, the conviction has settled and grown strong and taken deep and fast hold that those who sought to destroy the Government ought not to he called upon so shortly afterward to undertake to rule and carry on that Government. I do not believe there is another portion of this whole proposed amendment to which so general an assent will be given by the people of this country, the loyal and true people throughout. the whole broad extent of our land. They are full ready to declare that those who have proved false traitors and have raised their parricidal hands against the life of the country, who have attempted to strike down our government and destroy its institutions, should be the very last to be trusted to take any share in preserving, conducting, and carrying on that Governmentand maintaining those institutions and believing this, I have been all the more astonished that special attack should have been made on this particular section. A gentleman sitting near me suggested, a moment ago, another objection to this section; one, however, rather to the form and phrase o“logy than to the substance. Rebels are to be excluded from the right to vote for Representatives in Congress and for electors for President and VEEP ” He says this latter condition, without some I more precise and guarded expression, may be evaded; that as the Constitution gives the States the power “to appoint these electors in such manner as their Legislatures may direct, ” these States may, like SCarolina, give that power to their Legislatures, or even confer it upon their Governors. Now, all I have to say in reply is this: I am not troubled by the word “appoint.” If the Legislatures are called upon to appoint electors, they must in appointing vote for them; voting is involved in the manner of selection and no member of any State Legislature can be permitted to cast his vote for presidential electors, if this amendment be made to the Constitution, ifhe himself has voluntarily adhered to the cause of the rebellion. There is nothing to be apprehended from the possibility that disloyal voters may choose loyal legislators. If they do, we must trust and accept such choice. But they may give the power to their governors. Very well; ifthe Legislature shall by law direct the Governor to be their agent in the appointment of electors, then you reduce the matter to the test of still easier roof. That Governor cannot appoint, cannot c 10088, cannot vote for for those words “vote, uchoose, " and “appoint” are used indiscriminately in many parts of the Constitution unless he comes within the provisions of this section if it shall be adopted. I will not say that this proposition might not be embodied in some better form of words Here the hammer fell.]