Mr. STEWART. Mr. President, it is with some embarrassment that I rise to address my self to the very important subjects that are before this body. I should not regard the resolution under censideration as a matter of any great consequence if it stood abstractl and alone, fori0 not believe that it would have any binding force whatever upon anybody. But at atime when the whole country is in agitation over conflicting opinions between Congress and the Executive; at a time when the voice of the American people and the hearts of the American people are uplifted for peace; at a time when we must either have peace or destruction; at a time when the very existence, perhaps, of our free institutions depends upon the calm, just, and patriotic disposition of all questions, a resolution coming from the committee of 15 is a matter of grave consideration, and demands from every one a careful examination. We should investigate this matter and ascertain whether it will have any bearing toward harmony and peace, for if each step that is taken now is not in the right direction it may do great harm., We are, as it were, in this great contest like a little rrvulet. The contest has commenced here in Congress; it is now like a small stream on the mountain side, which can easily be turned aside with the foot or with the s ade in a moment; but if we let it goon byt rowing slight obstructions in the way of the current of peace, until accumulated difficulties form a torrent of discord, sweeping us down into an ocean of trouble, it may be past human power to avert the calamities which will then threaten our country. I regard this resolution (and shall proceed to give my views on it) as a stumblin block, as an obstruction, as something thatwi l retard eace and retard Union. It is said in its de ense that it is simply declaring that Congress has power, that this power is in the Constitution of the U.S., that it has been repeatedly declared by acts of Congress and resolutions of this body. If that be true, why throw this new element of discord now into our already confused deliberations. There are differences of opinion about it; but if those who have broughtforward this resolution as a declaration O power are correct in supposing that the power isingrafted in the fundamental law, the Constitution of the U.S., why is this agitating question to occup the attention of Congress? That congress as the power to exclude southern members from seats here is bestproved by the fact that it has done it for the last 12 months, thud still continues to do it, notwithstanding the war has ceased. The world knows that we can do it, because we have done it. The 1st thing when I came into these Halls was a proposition to admit Tennessee and Louisiana, and believe the honorable Senfrom Illinois was anxious then that they should be admitted. I voted for the postponement of the question, for the reason that Iwas not then certain that the organizations there existing would be able to sustain themselves and maintaintheir own existence. I was not sufficiently familiar with the question, and I voted to ost pone the consideration of the matter. e did not let them in then. We proved our power to keep them out. The have come here a ain at this session and aske for admission. lhey have not at been admitted, not even within these Hal 5, although some of the members they have sent were always truly loyal and served in your armies or were distinished “citizens who had been tried in the fiery urnace of secession, tried where rebellion raged with all its fury, and had come out true to the Union. Even they are excluded from this Hall. Have we not the power? Has not that been sufli eiently vindicated? I think the world will an swer, yes. Then, if you have the power to keep them out, ifyou have done it, ifyou have been. 1 exercising that power, why declare that you havq it? If there is no good result from a propOsition of this kind. there may be evil. There are with regard to the ultimate result sought to he arrived at by this proposition differences of opinion. I have said before, there are 2 sets of opinions in regard to the mode of allowing the States to come back. There is a difference of opinion among good men. That difference of opinion threatens the very destruction of the country. I have felt that embarrassment ever since I have been here. I came as thoroughly desirous of having this Union restored upon just and equitable principles as any man; an I am now desirous that all the States should be represented in these Halls by loyal men. I yiel to no man in that desire. I have sustained this Government to the best of my ability throu bout this war, and from its very 1st iuceptiongl have done it under all circumstances and on all occasions; and now in this issue I care not for self; I care not for the plaudits of men. If I can aid in contributin to briu about a restoration of these States an save this country from further war and future anarchy; if I can aid in securing what has been accomplished by our glorious warriors in the field; if I can aid in preserving that for posterity; if I can aid in the consummation of the prayers of those who love this country, it is my duty to do that; and the smiles of power or the frowns of enemies or of those who may desire to detract from my motives are nothing to me. I love my country more than party. I ove in country more than self aggrandizement. love my country more than miserable forms. If we can et the substantial thing, I shall be satisfied. at. upon this proposition there is a diversity of opinion. It must lead to a conflict of opinion, and its only operation, if it have any operation at all, is to de ay union and eace. All profess to desire the same result. hope their professions are sincere. I am bound to take it for granted that both Congress and the President desire to arrive at the same result. They want the Union restored. They want the governments of the southern States in the bands of the loyal men. I well recollectwhen this controversy commenced. It was before I caine here; it was at the time Mr. Lincoln issued his proclamation of reconstruction, which was, I think, in July, 1864. That proclamation was telegraphed to Nevada, where I live, and where we were struggling to maintain the Union cause; and I recollect the opposition that that policy met. I remember the powerful protest of the Senfrom Ohio [pMr WADE] and Mr. Davis, of Maryland, and the discussions upon it. I recollect going upon the stump and saying that these were mine r controversies; that what we wanted was the Union; that the Union men would stand together, and go through the war successfully; that these matters were details which we could arrange afterward, which would not deprive us of union. When I came here at the last session there was a controversy on these subjects; but I had no idea that Union men wofid not be willing to yield their peculiar notions sufficiently to enable usto accomplish the great object. Mr. Johnson has gone on with the same plan, except that he has restricted it somewhat; he has restricted the number of persons to whom amnesty was, extended by Mr. Lincoln. Mr. Johnson has excluded many from the right of voting and the right of holdin office whootherwise would have been entitle. He has added some 8 conditions to those which Mr. Lincoln prescribed. Organizations have grown u in the southern States by the non-action of congress. The war of rebellion was overthrown; the President must do something; he was not adictator; he simply took the issues of the war, and said to these men, “Frame your governments upon thisbasis and come to Congress for representation.” That is as far as he went. Now, while I have not heard any substantial argument against what he did, while I have not heard any substantial argument against the forms of government set up in the southern States, I have constantly heard argument after argument for 3 long months to show, not withstanding all this, that Congress had some power which had been overlooked in some way and was not being brought into properexercise. I have heard argument after orment day after day here to show howwe cond kee these States out of the Union, but I have waite in vain for arguments to show how we could get them in. I have not heard the wisdom of the Senate on the flquestion how we can get out of our present difficulties. Able and learned arguments have been adduced here to show that Congress can keep the States out. That we hear daily; and we not only hear of the power of Congress, but we see it, because congress actually does keep them out; and after thought that argument had been made so often that everybody was satisfied that congress had this power, here comes a proposition to declare the existence of the power. Now, I propose to examine some of the arguments that are adduced on the part of the president in support of his policy. I am not a stickler about the way these States get back. It is a sufficient objection to this resolution that it does not do any good, and it may do a great deal of harm. It is delaing the settlement of the question, and my on y excuse for talking about it is that as we are to have delay for the purpose of talking we may as well talk in connection with this resolution as any other dilatory measure. As long as we are to have dilater measures, we may as well talk on them. this said that this resolution is a roclamation of the power and an assertion oi the right of Congress to declare when a State is entited to representation. The President denies that Congress has the power to determine the question whether a State is entitled to representation in the Senate of the U.S., for the Constitution expressly provides “that no State withoutits consent shalPbe deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate, ” and the whole instrument is based upon the right of each State to representation in Congress, and that right as an abstract right cannot be taken from any State because its people have been in insurrection or for any other cause; but the abstract right must remain in each State as long as the Constitution and Union exist. But he does not say that therefore you have no power to keep traitors out of Congress. He says that all the acts of traitors in a State are void, that the cannot take a State out of the Union, but stilI you are to judge of the qualifications of your own members, you are to investigate the subject and he says that covers the whole question. He says that you may determine upon the elections, returns, and qualifications of members, and in determining upon their election of course you will determine upon the qualifications of the parties who elected them. If the election is of a member from a congresional district, cannot the other House of congress investigate the matter to see if the parties who cast the votes and elected the member had the right of suffrage? If the election is of a Senator, cannot we inquire whether the parties who cast the vote for imwere acting in obe dience to the laws of the U.S and qualified to vote in the Legislatures of the States where they did vote? The respective Houses can inquire into the qualifications of the voters who send the parties here, whether they be State Legislatures, or whether they be the constituenls generally in a district. There is no doubt about that; and the same result can be accomplished in that way, in pursuance of the Constitution, that is sought to e accomplished in another mode. It seems to me that the power to suspend the right of a State to representation may imply a dangerous power and may imply a right to suspen it for any reason that Congress may see fit. That is the danger about it. lhepower to suspend the right of a State to be represented. PM; v L some may hereafter be a terrible precedent. The President wishes to avoid that. Mr. Lincoln during the whole war carefully avoided dening the right of a State to representation. e constantl denied that the Union was dissolved, that the laws admitting the States had been abrogated, that any of their acts while in rebellion were legal so far as to take away the right of a State to representation. He said that the peeple who rebe led bad no right to representation, they were not in harmon with the Government, but they had not overt irown our Government, and that was a very material consideration that was carried all through the 1st part of the war. It was regarded as a veryim portant point never to be yielded. Mr. Lincoln and his Administration carried it through. Every proclamation issued by him speaks of the insurrection of the inhabitants and not of the States. We have gone on thus far, and if we can get through without announcing that dangerous principle that these acts of secession were really valid), if we can get these States back in any other way, if we can have loyal.men to represent them and reconstruct them without acknowledging that the rebellion was a success, it is regarded by Mr. Johnson, and it is regarded by a great number of loyal men, as an important proposition. There is no provision in the Constitution conferring such a power upon Congress. No authority of the kind is expressed in that in strument, nor can I find any place where it is implied by just implication. In fact it was never anticipated that States would attempt to go out of the Union; and when they attempted to do it, we said that not being anticipated in the Constitution, that they could not do it legally, and any attempt on their part would be absolutely void. We started With that idea. This was simply a continuation of the discussion that commenced while Jeff Davis was in this Hall. We said that they could not break the laws of Congress, that they must still be enforced. Whether right or wrong, we have continued on that idea. I say it is not necessary or proper to change it and get up a different dec aration unless some great good can be accomplished or some great necessity exists for it. f there has been any action of Congress upon the subject, admittin that acts of secession were lawful or valid, simply say that it was without warrant of the Constitution or laws, and that if we have got any precedents of that kind they are sufficient without the aid of a resolution which has no binding force upon the Senate. I have another objection to this resolution, and it is a veryimportant one. The resolution upon its face contains an untruth. The main recital of this resolution is not true in regard to a fact which has been heretofore regarded as important, whether it be really important or not. do not regard it as so important as some do. It speaks of the cleven States which have been dec ared to be in insurrection. I ask when and by whom were 11 States declared in insurrection? The proclamationof the President, issued on the 16th of August, 1861, did not declare the States to be in insurrection; but Abraham Lincoln, acting upon the same theory which the President is today carrying out, said, “I do hereby declare that the inhabitants of certain States and parts of States, ” naming them, “are in a state of insurrection against the U.S. ” Now, whatever you may do here which you admit has no binding force or effect on anybody, I protest against the recital.ofa fact which shall change the condition of things as they existed at the time of the issuance of that proclamation, or that shall place our late President in a false position in regard thereto, because if there was any point upon which he was careful it was that. I have examined all his proclamations, and be uniformly speaks of the insurrection of the inhabitants of the States. He always claimed that every loyal man in those States had a right to the protection of the laws of Congress, and that if there Iwas but one 10th of them loyal they might form State government. That I thought was of doubtful propriety, because I did not believe they could amaintain it, but be all the while contended for the rights of those who remained loyal. He said that the inhabitants of a State might rebel, but the State never, and that all the laws of Congress, and the solemn compact of the Constitution should ever remain as a shield to ever loyal man who might dwell in the South. that was the thwry, and it is nota very preosterous one. It is the one on which we foug it the war. It is the one that we inserted in our platform; and I protest that that proclamation of the 16th of August, 1861, shall not be made to declare that President Lincoln ever said or intimated that a State was in rebellion, for the language of the proclamation is as I have read. Ie cclared the inhabitants of certain States and parts of States to be in insurrection. Now, if this resolution was made to conform t8 the truth how would it read? It would read t us: That in order to close agitation upon a ucrtion which seemslikely to disturb the action oft o government. as well as to quiet the uncertainty which is awgiotasteininghtahbeitmanintsdshaovf ethbeepecnoccpeleloafrethdetoelbeeve insurrcction, no Senator or Itcpresentatives hall be admitted into either branch of Congress from any of said States until Congress shall havedeclared such State entitled to such representation. Now, is that a correct principle? Is it correct abstractly? lt has no importance except as a declaration of principle. It is not legislotion. it will have no legislative effect. There is no other excuse for it except its purity of principle. It is simply a declaration of principle. It is not to accomplish any ulterior end. It is simply brought in here as agrand declaration of some important principle. In passing bills, when there is a desire to reach some legit imate end, I can excuse inaccuracies in the statement of reasons; but if we are oing to have a broad declaration of principlej wantit not only to conform to the truth, but to bea principle upon which we can stand. Then, ift iis resolution be correct in principle, it means thatif a portion of the people of a State go into insurrection that State shall be excluded from representation in Congressjust so long as Congress may elect. I do not say that, that principle ever will be, and I hope it never may be, applied to any other section or to this section again; but.lask you, are you willing to a plyit to other sections? Ifa part of the people of aState rebel, you say Congress may then exclnde loyal Representatives from the Halls of Congress so long as they may elect to do so. Suppose the inhabitants or parts of the inhabitants of a State should be declared by the President to be in insurrection, and there should be a collision between the Congress and the President; suppose the President should he pen to declare some section particularly hostilb to him or to his party to be in insurrection, the question as to the right of the State to representation would be open and Congress would possess full power to exclude it. It does seem to me that this resolution is not of sufficient importance as an enunciation of principle that we should take up the time of Congress to consider it for a verylong period at this importlnt crisis. Why take time nowto considgr a resolution which its friends admit amounts to nothing, and which centainly cannot be maintained in point of principle? Here I ay say that it is fortunate for the chairman of the committee of 15 who reported this resolution to the House that this new doctrine was not understood, or at all events not applied, at the time of the “whisky insurrection" or the buckshot war in Pennsylvania. Is it not a duo erous doctrine toadmit, 1st, that a State may ose itsright to representation, or, in other words, go out of the Union, and 2nd, whether the State has done so or not is a matter which Congress may determine? Jeff. Davis said that a State could go out of the Union, and that the State was the propertribunalto determine when that fact was accomplished. That roused the whole loyal heart of the people of the North. They rose against it. They fought it in these Halls. Mr. Lincoln came into power. You undertook to deny it, and it was the intensity and logic of that discussion that was then had which went through this rebellion and saved the country. This res. olution says, in fact, thata State may go out of the Union, but that Congress is the sole judge when that fact has been accomplished. That is the difference. I do not care much whether the State judges or Congress judges. The constitution is fixed; they cannot go out. I deny their power to go out, and I deny the power of Congressto put a State out or to force a State Out and I also deny the power of rebels and traitors to do it. We did deny it, and when they attempted to do it and submitted it to the arbitrament of war we decided the case on the battle field that the laws and the Constitution of the U.S. were supreme and paramount and could not be destroyed. I do not want to take that declaration back. I have got ten into the habit of arguing it in that"way. I have been through political campaigns and met copperheads on that issue, and I do not like to be compelled to recall my words and admit that I am wrong, because there are many men who can understand this issue and meet us on it. It may be said that Congress is a safer tribunalbefore which to try that Question than a single State; but are we certain that the majority of Congress may not some day, if this principle shall be maintained and become a precedent, find it convenient for party purposes, or to gratify sectional prejudices, to make other divisions or exclude from the Union other States besides those referred to in this resolution? The principle is a dangerous one; and if the resolution be adopted it may do more harm than will at 1st appear; but if we are simply here, to declare principles, and not to legislate or take action, I say declare correct principles. It has cost too much blood and treasure to vindicate the integrity of the Union and to establish its indivisibility for us to admit that such a thing could be possible under an circumstances. But it may be said that enying the right of a State to representation is not denying the fact that the State is in the Union. Iask what is the difference? Would any Senator here say that if every man in the State of SCarolina was as loyal as the Senfrom Michigan had been, as true and as faithful to the cause as he has been during this war and after the ebellion was over, although during the war they had been overcome by treason and elected the honorable Senfrom Michigan and sent him here, that he should not bereccived? If they were every one that Way, I ask, would you thin of excluding him? I think not. I say, how can a State be in the Union and not be entitled abstractly to representation, that being the obgzct for which the Union was formed. but we are told by some that the States whose inhabitants have recently been in rebellion are not States at all; but that question can hardly arise under this resolution. for the resolution itself calls them States and I shall not question the truth of that recital; for the argument of the Senfrom Wisconsin. IMr.Hows] although an effort of marked ability, failed to convince me that any State has been either killed or committed suicide, and since that Senators great effort the SCOTUS have added to the executive branch of the Government their authority to the effect that the Union has not been dissolved. Upon the breaking out of the rebellion that court declined to hear cases from the States whose inhabitants were declared to be in rebellion, but not for the reason that those States had gone out of the Union. If this discrimination between a State and its inhabitants is foolish, why does the Supreme Court kce up that distinction? The Supreme Court all t in while calls them States, but speaks of the interruption of process by the insurrection of the inhabitants, and assigned that as a reason wh it would not hear cases from those States. he Supreme Court said that the inhabitants of certain States have been declared to be in insurrection; we cannot carry out our process there, and consequently will not hear those causes. That is whntthey said when the rebellion broke Ont. They did not base their reason, mark you, on the fact that the States had one into rebellion, but that the inhabitants oft le States had gone into rebellion, and the could notissue process. That is the reason why they did not ear cases during the rebellion. But at the present term the court has set several causes from Louisiana and other southern States, which could only be done upon the supposition that these are States in the Union, for the Supreme Court could only exercise such jurisdiction as is conferred by the Constitution and laws of the U.S. TneConstitution and the judiciar acts under which the court entertains juris iction in these cases a ply (pnly to States, as the court have repeated y e. The jurisdiction that this court exercises over the Territories is altogether distinct, and is derived from that clause in the Constitution which empowers Congress to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the U.S.; and the court has frequently decided that before any jurisdiction could be exercised in aTerritory, Congress must expressly authorize the exercise of such jurisdiction by law. I am not aware that Congress has passed any law by which a case could be broughteither from the Territory of Tennessee or ouisisna, and no law can be found authorizing the court to hear and determine cases to which I have referred unless they originated in States in this Union. Will you say, if the are States, that all States have not the right of representation as an abstract right? There may be no one worthy to representthem; and, unfortunately for the loyal men of the South in many sections, they did not have loyal mdn to represent them. It was unfortunate for us that we had not the power to succor them and guaranty to them representation. It was unfortunate for us that we had to turn them over to be slaughtered by the cruel conspirators., But I deny that they lost their citizenship. I deny that the State of Tennessee was ever out of the Union. I deny that the POTUS is or ever has been an alien. I deny that Maynard is an alien. I deny that Brownlowis an alien. I deny that any loyal man who stood firm in the “darkest night of the rebellion is an alien. I.will not vote for any motion, rule. resolution, Or other proceeding that can imply such a thing by the most casuistical argument; and I say that this resolution is capable, I think, on a fair construction, but it is capable at all events of the construction that the Union of the States have been dissolved. There is no use in throwing these irritating questions into the present already too much excited state of the Public mind But.it is Said, to what does this argument lead? Have we not the power to prevent traitors and rebels from taking seats In this Senate? Jeff. Davis said we had no power to make war upon them unless we admitted they were a foreign power. They said we had no right to make war unless we admitted they were out of the Union, that we could not make war upon, 8 State. We replied to Jeff. Davis, we do not propose to make war upon a State, but we will made war upon traitors. That is the way we met the argument. That is the way the Union soldiers metthe?argument. Now, you say that if we admit that a State is in the Union, and that it has the rights of a State, we cannot keep traitors out of Congress. I deny it. It does not follow. The Senate has no right to allow traitors to come into this Hall.