Mr. HARDING, of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, the country as a general thin has been deceived and misled in regard to the troublesome and vexed question of the negro. The great mass of the people labored under the delusive impression that when slavery was removed or destroyed all strife between the North and the South would disappear. They were everywhere told that slavery was the cause of the rebellion and the strife between the North and South; remove that and all strife would cease. Hence, they were naturally inclined to believe that the removal or destruction of slavery would put an end to all this strife. I have never believed so for a single moment. Slavery was but one phase, one development of the negro question., Slavery is gone, but the negro question comes back on us with redoubled force. The Republican party have manufactured a large amount of capital out of the negro question. 1st they began with caution, now they draw on it as if they thought it as inexhaustible as were the widows barrel of meal and cruse of oil. The fact that thb negro question has continued so long has been owing to the great care with which the Republican party has man a edit. When the question o emancipation of the slaves was before the country the Republican party began with extreme caution. hen slaves were emanncipatd in the DistCol, they disclaimed all power and right to interfere With slavery in the States, allegin that the char 6 against them was a slander, an appealing to dieir Chicago convention platform. hat accomplished, however, is but one step. What is the next? Then slavery is stricken down in all the Territories, and the compro mises of the past revolutionized. What next? The President had said that he had no lawful power to interfere with slavery in the States. hlis Secretary, by his authority, had said that any effort on the part of the President in that direction would be so manifestly unconstitutional that it would be arrested by the courts, even though Congress and the people might as sent to it. What is to be done then? Upon consultation a fiction was devised. The constitution prohibited all interference; the war power was resorted to, and upon that fiction war was made upon slavery in the rebellious States. Well, what next? What shall be done with the stubborn, unyielding, perverse State of Kentucky, and some of the other border States? You cannot apply the war power to that institution in Kentucky, because she has not been in rebellion. That State stood under the old fin and contended for her rights in the Union. what was to be done then? Why, we will strike down slavery in the Union; we will strike at Kentucky, under the old flag and in the Union and hence, before the war was over an amendment to the constitution was passed, passed rigNht in the middle of this struggle. ow, does any sober man in is senses believe that if the whole purpose of the republican party had then been disclosed it would not have revolutionized that party? It is said that consistency is a jewel; but honesty, frankness, and open, fair dealing is a for brighter and more precious one. But something at least has been gained. The republican party now stands openly committed fore the whole country in favor of unrestricted universal negro voting and negro officeholding. However much that has been disguised and denied it can no longer be concealed. Why, sir, during the elections that took place last year, even in my own State and district, I with many others foresaw what was coming; get you could not impress itu on the people. nd even those in Kentucky whohad gone oil"and joined themselves to the abolition party denied that there was any such purpose on the part of any except a few fanatics in the North. People could nowhere be made to believe that there was any purpose of universal political negro equality. at now the question is made here on negro suffrage, precisely as it was on negro slavery in the DistCol. You have voted universal negro suffrage for the whole mass of that population in the District, and on have opened the way to them to become officeholders. In view of the various propositions now before the House the same purpose is manifested and sought to be carried out universally. Who will deny any longer that it is the purpose of the controlling majority of the republican partyto carry out universally negro suffrage throughout the whole country? It was denied everywhere; no Republican dared fora moment to take that position a few years ago. But now you are before the country on that issue. It was denied even in the late election for Governor in Ohio but now the party is compelled to come out and assume the position. Now, sir, in the hands of these skillful manipulators, I know not how many Protean shapes this negro question can yet be made to assume. I suppose when universal negro suffrage is carrie, then negro homesteads and intermarriage between negroes and whites will be encouraged so far as law will encourage it. That will be the next step. But now we know what the proposition is. This provision is sought to be fastened upon the whole country by a constitutional amendment. It is the 1st time in the history of this country that any party deliberately set about for the purpose of ingrafting upon the organic law of the and their own peculiar political dogmas. What are we met with here now? No less than 70 amendments to the constitution and if there were an amendment for every time that instrument has been violated, perhaps twice 70 would not meet the demand. But 70 amendments! Where do they all come from 2 Every one comes from the Republican party. What does that show in regard to the loyalty of this part? Now, I do not hold the Republican party responsible as a party for the extreme utter ances of some brainless demagogues in the N orththose who desire, as they said, an antislavery constitution, an antislavery Bible, and yet another term more profane than that, nor do I hold them as a party responsible for that o“ther utterance, that our old constitution was a covenant with death and a league with hell.” I do not hold the party responsible for that, but I do hold them responsible for their own work here in Congress. But, sir, what do these 70 amendments show in regard to the loyalty of the party? What isloyalty under our former Government? Is it not to be true and faithful to the constitution; to support and defend it? Does it not mean that, no more and no less? What was the crime of the South? What constituted them traitors at the commencement of our troubles? Was it not that they rose up, rebelled, made war upon the Constitution as it then was? That was disloyalty then. To support the constitution was loyalty, not to support it disloyalty. Now, these 70 amendments coming fibm that party even before the struggle is yet over, one carried in the middle of the war, might be considered by men a little censorions as showing that the Republican party at the North is about as much opposed to the constitution as the southern rebels were. Some men might say so; I do not say it. Now, the Democratic party and the majority of the people of Kentucky have always been loyal, according to the true definition of the term, because in my State a majority of the people from 1st to last struggled to sustain the old form of government. When the question of loyalty turned on sustaining the onstitution, then the voice of Kentucky was for the old constitution and amid the storm and tempest of war, high up above the storm, the voice of Kentucky rung out at every period for the constitution as it was; and yet her loyalty is called in question. Now, were you in the North, vour leading politicians, satisfied with the constitution I How happened it, then, that before the war was over there was an attempt to change it? Why is it that you attempt to force back these States but will not let them come backto the Government they left? How does it happen that there are 70 amendments pending, all of them coming from that party? Suppose a religious teacher, however loud his professions of piety might he, should undertake to sustain by arment that there are 70 wellfounded objections to the Bible, some men might think his orthodoxy a little questionable. But suppose he goes on, professing all the time to be a devoted christian and to love his Bible, and manufactures objections until he has more than one for every page of that sacred old volume, no charity would restrain us from pronouncin that man an infidel of the doc est dye. Hgow it is here? There are 23 pages of the constitution, and we have 70 amendments alread more than an average of 3 amendments fdr every panel and yet that is the “loyal” partypdf Now, as to amending the constitution, I do not know but that in time, when all passion subsides and men are cool enough to rise above the passions of the hour and look over the whole country in all its sections, and look forward to the wants and happiness of posterity, some amendiuents may properly come up, such as this: that RhdIsland. for example, with 2 Representatives shall not have the same power in the Senate that NewYork has, with 30 oncRepresentatives; and then, again, thatwhen the election of President devolves on Congress, as it probably will and perhaps very frequently, it may be thought that it is not in accordance with our RFG for RhdIsland, with 2 Representatives, to count as much as NewYork, with 31 Representatives, in the election of President by Congress. Some o! these changes may come up in time. While it is not my business to admenish good, loyal RhdIsland, yet it might be well for RhdIsland and some other of those States in the East to keep a little near shore and not go out too far in this experiment of making changes in the constitution. Now, I appeal to every man who hears nieif the work of constitution making and Constitution amending is not one of the very things that require. not only the enlniest deliberation, but the highest order of patriotism. It needs men who will rise up above the feverish political issues of the day, trample them under foot as unworthy a moments consideration, and look with the eye of the patriot and statesman over the whole country, embracing in their liberal view every section and every interest of the country for all time to come. But, sir, among these 70 amendments, every one that my attention has been called to is a miserable scrap of party stuff. The one now under consideration has no higher object in view than a mere sectional advantage to strike down and weaken the representative power of Kentucky and the other southern States; or in stead of that, we are to have the negroes enfranchised, so that they will hold the balance of power and secure the Control of the States to the republican party. It is a measure not to affect the men of the North, but to come down with considerable effect upon the border States. It is wholly, entirely, intensely sectional and partisan, and every man knows it. Now, I repose to call attention to the record this Republican party has made on this very question. It is time that a little posting was one, so as to bring together and compare the different pages of record this party has made. At the time when the enianciation question was up, and when everything else was rept be hind the curtain, and that development of the negro question only presented, it was denied everywhere that anything else was to come afterward.