Mr. PRICE. Mr. Speaker, I think it due to myself, I think it due to this House, I think it due to the country generall, and to the State of Iowa particularly, thatI should make a plain statement of facts in reference to one part of my colleagues speech. t will be remembered by this House that a few days since, during the course of the speech of the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, Mr. Boren] I stated that the people of the State of Iowa had recently had the question of negro suffrage before them and hat? decided in favor of negro suffrage. Il ow, today, my colleague, in his speech, takes issue with that and raises a question of veracity, and it is that question that I propose to sett e in a very few moments. M colleague read to you the resolution of the I epublican convention of the State of Iowa, and read it correctly. upon that resolution there was a discussion in the convention, some weakbacked Republicans being very fearful that we should lose the State if we passed such a resolution and went to the country upon it. N ow, I want to state most explicitly an positively that the Republican party of Iowa went before the people of that State at the election for Governor and other officers upon that plat form, definitely, distinctly, and positively made. I want to state, also, in connection With that fact, that the other partynot the Democratic party, because they ignored all claim to Democ racy; the other partymade up of the Democratic party and Republicans who did not like negro suffrage, placed upon their ticket, not a Democrat; no, sir; not a sympathizer with the rebellion; no, sir; they placed upon their ticket colonel Thomas H. Benton, Mr., a Republican, a man who had justcome out of the war; and they placed him there simply and entirel because he was opposed to negro suffrage. hey did not dare run a Democratupon that ticket; they did not dare run anyone but a man who was squarely and positivelyl opposed to negro suffrage. I must say for m that, morall, he is as gooda man probably as we have int e State of owa; intellectually he is at least the equal of the man by whom he was beaten; and ever body in the State of Iowa knows, and if my colleague does not know it then he mustnot knowwhat is goin on in Iowa, that he was beaten on the issue o negro suffrage. I will say this for my colleague if it be an excuseand perhaps it is due that should say ittbat he made it convenient not to be in the State ofIowa ver much during the discussion of this question. guess he was not there at the election. If he was there he can speak. I will say, also, that he wrote 2 letters, one from the plains, during that canvass, one of which was interpreted to mean antinegro suffrage, taking the ground that if negroes were allowed to vote in the States where so many negroes were they would control the white voters. As it came nearer election day, and the handwriting on the wall became more and more distinct, then mycollea e wrote another letter, which was interpreted y those who read it and understood it, as they supposed, to mean a little more negro suffrage not quite so antias the 1st letter was, but whether it was for negro suffrage or not negro suffrage a great many there were in doubt. t placed them in the condition of the men w“ho wrote the lines: Winding in and winding out, They left the beholderstill in doubt Whether the snake thatmadopthotruok Was 30mgsouth or com: back.” Now, I have not misunderstood this question, because the House will remember that when my colleague was making his s each a few minutes ago he said that we be 40,000 majority in Iowa at a certain election, and at this election but 16,000 majority. I am willing to take this evidence on that subject, and what does it prove? If it proves anyting it provesand that is what my colleague intended to prove by itthat the question of negro suffrage being before the people, it reduced the Republican or Union majority. If it did that, we had the question before us, and would it not have been very easy for my colleague to have answered my plain question and said to me “yesH or no!” I gave him his choice and told him I did not care which way he an swered. But there are some men in this world so constituted that they cannot move straight forward to a certain point. I do not say that such is the case with any member of this House. I state it as a general principle. There are some men so constituted, either by education or by nature, I do not care which it may be, that they cannot move straight to any given point, but. they must necessarily o around in a circle upon the principle that the farthest way around is the safest. ow, the fact is, that we did not lose that majority entirely on the question of negro suffrage. We lost only between 4 an 5,000 on the negro suffrage question. Butthat question was squarely in eissue in the late election. In the residential election, when the whole vote of thle State was brought out, our majority was about 4,000. At the late election the majority” Governor was about 16,000, an the balance of the ticket was alittle over 20,000; the difference being in consequence of this negro suffrage question. ow, have I not proved to this House, have I not proved to my colleague [Mr. Kassoiv] if he did not know it before, that this question was before the people of Iowa at the last election, and that fwas correct when I made the declaration a few days ago in this House that we had had the question squarely before us, and the people of own had pronounced in favor of negro suffrage by 16,000 majority? My colleague reerred to my county in regard to that vote. Now, in my count they ha no Democratic ticket at all; but teopposition ticket was headed “Antinegro suffrage.” and in the 3rd congressional district of the State of Iowa the Opposition ticket was headed “White mans ticket.” Does not that prove to every man who wants to look at the matter squarely and in a commonsense view, that we had the question squarely before us at that election? and yet my colleague could not see it; could not answer "yes" or “no, ” when I put the lain question to him before this House; coulrd not say whether the question was before us or not. et every man in the State of Iowa, with probably the exception of m colleague from the 5th district, knew that he question was before us. It was known on all si es, and stated in all the papers that the election would be decided on that question, and that the principle of negro suffrage was carried by 16,000 in