Mr. SAULSBURY. Mr. President, the ref erence of the honorable Senfrom Massachusetts to a remark which I made yesterda constitutes my a ology for trespassing for moment, and on y for a moment, upon the "attention of the Senate.” The honorable Senator seems to labor nudes a very great mistake. He seems to have understood me as saying that the Democratic party ofvthis country was tocome into power a through the agency of the present Executive. I sai nothin" of theltin. Since the commencement is sobsion the Democratic mcmbersdfthis” rhva satintheir seats in per11865. 118 fact silence, without. sayin one word in reference to any of the issues that seem to distract the councils of the Republican party. I did say, however, yesterday, that the apprehension seemed to exist in the minds of some in the other end of the Capitol and in this Chamber that the Democratic party of the country was again to come into power, and througi the agency of the present Executive. I was expressing no opinion of my own, but stating the simple fact that such an a prehension seemed to exist. Was I not justified in that remark? I recollect reading in the news papers a speech made in this city by Mr. Thaddeus Stevens, a distinguished citizen of Pennsylvania, in which he openly advocated the exclusion of the southern States from representation in the Congress of the U.S. on the ground that such a representation would be destructive of the Republican party. He is high authority in that political church, I believe. I appea to the honorable Senatbr from Massachusetts to know whether, in the speech made by his colleague [Mr. SUMNER] yesterday and the extracts read from private letters which he said he had reccive from southern people, the same apprehension did not seem to exist. But, sir, I did not rise to express any opinions of my own as to whether that apprehension was well or ill founded. I am in no position to know whether it was well or ill founded. I have known the POTUS as n. distinguished Senator ll)Oll this floor. I served with him for several years, and our relations were always of the most kindly and friendly character, and I will take occasion here to say that, although not of his party now, when he was of mine I entertained for him highpersonal regard, and though he may have strayed iInto wrong company, still for him individually entertain great personal respect and kindness, and for one, so far as his actions shall conform to the constitution of the country and the just rights of the States of the Union, I shall stand by him, finding no fault, but lending him my humble support, not however because I suppose the result of, that course will be to break u a party which is a great and glorious and noble party, as the honorable Senfrom Massachusetts would have us believeu party whose heroes never retreat, but alwa 5 go forward. We shall see whether the will eas successful in the accOmplisliment oiy party purposes in the future as they have been in the past. But I will say to the honorable Senfrom Massachusetts that, with or without the a ency of the POTUS, the democratic party is not in such a hopeless, condition as e seems to suppose. e volunteers his kind advice that it needs reconstruction. Let me tell that honorable Senator that however offensive the word “conservative” may be to him, that party is a conservative party. It does not make sudden changes; it does not require frequent reconstruction; it needs no new or modern architects to build it up: “We know what mastersformedits keel. What workmen wrought its ribs of steel, Who madeeach mast and sail, and ropeI What anvils rang. what hammers beat, In what a forgoand what a heat Weioshapedtho anchor of its hope.” Sir, it was formed by the great and the good men of the country who formed the Constitution of the country which this Congress, and some of the party to which the honorable senator belongs, seem so anxious to reconstruct and to improve. Why; sir, I believe it was only yesterda that an amendment to the constitution of the “ countrythe work of those old fogics ” of a former age who did not seem to understand their business the men who laid the deep foundations of this Government firmly in the principles of constitutional libertywas offeret in the other branch of Congress, and passed through without debate under the previous question, and hurried into this body. he. Senator does belong to a progressive a e and to a progressive party! he work which cost such men as George Washington and James Madison and the founders of the country. "months of anxious deliberation, is now every day the subject of patchwork in the Congress of the U.S.; and there is no states man, however young or inexperienced, or unknown to fame, that does not feel himself perfectly competent to amend the workmanship of such men as the founders of this Government. Mr. President, let me say to the honorable Senfrom Massachusetts that however olfcnsive the word “conservative” may be to him, if this work of amending the fun amental law of the land is to be proceeded with so rapidly and is to continue, a prehend that the number of the Democratic 0st will swell, and that there will be more conservative men who, ven erating the work of their fathers, will solemnly protest against the inconsiderate and hasty legistion of the present times. As I said before, I am in no situation to know the views of the POTUS further than he chooses to communicate them in his written messages to this body. While I shall support the President in all constitutional measures, I would not have it understocid that I agree with him in much that he has done. I have no doubt that he has acted patrioticall and as he thought right. I am perfectly willlfing to give him cre it. for that. But, sir, his theory of restoration is not my theory of restoration; neither is the theory of the destruction of the southern States as advocated by others my theory. I will simply state in one moment what I mean, without entering into this question now; it will be time enough to do so hereafter. I hold that when armed resistance to Federal authority ceased in the southern States, and the Federal authority was acknowledeed, those States never having ecu out of the Union, but always in it, their ordinances of secession absolute nullities, the people of those Statebsehinag a right to assemble as citizens of the U.S., elect their own State Legislatures, elect their own Governors, and put into operation the machinery of government, without the intervention of the President or Congress or anybody else. Although I never had the honor to see the distinguished warrior who did as much if not more than any other in suppressing armed resistance to Federal authorityI refer to GenlSherman I take this occasion to say that the only true and wise solution of this national dif ficulty was that which GenlSherman adopted in his negotiations with General Johnston. find his action been approved and his programme been carried out in good faith, peace would not only have reigned from ocean to ocean and from the lakes to the Gulf, but happiness and contentment would have eve where revailed, and the vacant sentsin these alls of ongress would have been filled with representatives from the southern States, not in enmity to the Government of the U.S., but rejoicin7 that they were a in back under that same oId do which they in former years adored, and whicii their fathers followed and worshiped. But, sir, that mode of settlement was not adopted. The POTUS acting, as I have said I have no doubt, patriot ically, adopted his mode of restoration of the relations of) those States to the Federal Government; and I am glad that he does not use the word “reconstruction.” The people of the southern States have themselves acquiesced in that mode of restoring their relations to the Fed erflGovernment. It then is not only the preside 3 plan, but it becomes, by virtue of the adoption of the people of the southern States, their plan, and may e treated as the act of the people of those States. Therefore I can legit imately and properly support the Igresident in his plan ofrestoration, the people of those States having the right themselves to act upon it, and having adopted it as theirs. Upon no other round condI support it. How much nobler, 0w much wiser, how much more statesmanlike is that plan than the plan presented by some, of treating 11 States of p this Union as foreign territory conqliliered and held by military power, subject to the control of the conqueror, and to be disposed of according to his sovereign will! The Presidents plan, as adopted by the people of those States, ves them the same status in the Union that t cy always had before they forcibly opposed Federal authority. It secures to the people of those States the regulation of their own internal affairs, and is antagonistic to that proposed by the advocates of the opposite theory. One word more, sir; and it in as well be said now as at any other time. c arotold by the honorable Senfrom Massachusetts another s of like opinions with himself, that the 2nd section of) the amendment to the constitution, as it is called, but which I call the unconstitutional pretended constitutional amendment to the constitution of the U.S., confers ample power upon the congress of the U.S. not only to go into the southern States, but into any State of this Union, and to legislate in reference to the condition of what are termed the freedmen. I have never had but one opinion in reference to that amendm ent. I acknowledge that as a matter of fact slavery does not exist in this country. other things have brought about the abolition of slavery. It has been abolished by the military power of the country. I think the honorable ISenator and others are greatly at fault when they suppose that there is any great desire to restore slavery in this country. I do not believe, from my intercourse with some of these southern gentlemen since the commencement of this Congress, that in some of the lm est slaveholding States in the South they won], if they could, restore slavery. Still, sir, as I call it an unconstitutional pretended constitutional amendment I will say that I do not believe the Congress of the U.S. had a right to pass it. 3/4ths of the States have no right to say whether slavery shall exist in my State or not. It is a matter foreign to the objects of the Government when formed, a matter never intended by the parties to the compact, as there are 100 other things which were never intended to be intrusted to the decision of 3/4ths of the States. It was no more intended by them than it was intended that 3/4ths of the States should decide whether there should be slavery in Massachusetts or not. But, sir, what is the meaning of the brass “appropriate legislation?” The honorable Senfrom Illinois [Mr. Tnunnvm. the other day asked me what it did mean. having had nothiu to do with it in its passage, I remarked that I do not know what it did mean; but I think I can judge of the meaning of language. The amendment itself was an amendment to abolish slavery. What is slavery? That is the subject matter of the amendment. Slavery is a status, a condition; it is a state or situation where one man belongs to another and is subject to his absolute control. The slave can own no property of his own; he cannot work for himself, but he is subject to the command of his owner. Cannot that status or condition be abolished without attempting to confer on all former slaves all the civil political rights that white people have? Certain y. Your “appropriate legislation ” is confined to the subject matter of your amendment, and extends to nothing else. “Congress shall have power by approprinte le lotion to carry this amendment into effect.” Vhat amendment? the amendment abolishing slavery, abolishing the status, the condition of slavery; but there is nothing in your amendment which gives Congress the power to enter my State on undertake to reg ulate the relations existing between classes and different conditions in life. When the passions of the maddeued hour shall die away and reason shall resume its throne, and the clearheaded jurists of the land shall sit in judment upon such a question as this, I have no doubt as to what the decision will be. It has been said that it was never questioned that Congress had such a wer. have great respect for the opinion o learned gentlemen of this Senate, but confess that if were to ask a student of 6 months in my office such a question as that, and he were to express such an opinion, I should really 00!" rider that his term of study in the office Should be 6 years, instead of 3 as the law of our State requires before his admission to practice. Mr. President, slavery is abolished, and that I think ought to be sufficient for the lovers of freedom in this country, and especially for my friendfrom Massachusetts. I 10 c what I say will be taken in good part; but what does that honorable Senator know about the condition of the negro race? I know he has made it a stud for a great many years of his life; he has read the newspapers; he has read volumes of records here, as he sayS he has read man private letters; and yet in the State in which he lives there are not enough persons of that race to make milestones along their public roads. What opportunities for actual personal observation and knowledge has he had? None whatever. why, sir, he was never kind enough until this war Was over to visit the southern States and make an inspection for himself. If he had come to the State in which I live, as he has in political times I believe visited the upper portion of it, he would have been kindly received, and might have had opportunities to observe the condition of the negro population