Mr. SPALDING. When I suggested last evening the expediency of holding a session today, and intimated that I would.to speak, it was more for the purpose of affording an op H.to those members of the House who adprepared themselves with T.in writing or in print, which they wish to pronounce, than to speak myself. I would now very cheer fully yield the floor to any gentleman of thatcharacter; but as I have not been able to discover any such present, I shall ask liberty to occupy the attention of the House for a few moments in making some remarks, perhaps of a ram bling character, but such as shall not be inapt, in the consideration of the Executive message. But 1st, I desire to give attention for a moment to my respected friendfrom Pennsylvania, [Mr. Stevens, ] my only senior in this House, and a gentleman for whom I can entertain nothing but kind regard, and for whose opinions I most commonly have profound respect. But it so happens, unfortunately for me, that whenever I am called upon to make any remarks on this floor and I do not do it often I am subjected to the caustic criticism of the learned Gentfrom Pennsylvania, [Mr. Stevens] Now, sir, on the last day of the session of this House, before the adjournment over for the holidays, I undertook; in the most innocent manner, to explain my sentiments in respect to the validity of the State organizations in the lately rebellious States, and to show that in justice was done me in one or 2 of the jour mals of the day when they said that a resolution of inquiry, which I offered some weeks ago, signified that I supposed that the action of those Legislatures, or a portion of them, was necessary to the ratification of the proposed amendment to the Constitution of the U.S. I called the attention of the House to an article found in the Washington Chronicle of the day before I spoke, in which the editor represented me as entertaining that opinion, and as running the proceedings of Congress into an absurdity iP we were to ask these Legislatures to ratify the amendment to the Constitution, and then afterward seek to displace them and set up other governments in their stead. Now, sir, in making my remarks on that occasion I expressly declared and my friend [Mr. Stevens] could not have heard me or else he would not have made this criticism upon me I expressly declared that I never supposed that the amendment to the Constitu;tion of the U.S., which emanated from his committee, the JtComReconstruction, and which has been submitted to the Legislatures of the several States I never supposed for a moment that it could receive any validity from the action of anyone of those outstanding States. I said expressly that I believed the ratification of that amendment by 3/4ths of the loyal States was sufficient to make it a part of the Constitution of the U.S. And in that I agreed exactly with the editor of the paper upon which I was then commenting. Now, Mr. Speaker, my friendfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. STEvens] says I read from the Globe of the next day: “Mr. Speaker, had I gotthefloor at the time when the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. SPALDING) sat down, I had intended, perhapsirregularly, to have said one word in regard to his position. I will only now say, however, that I think the argument of the editor is altogether the better of the two, and perfectly conclusive.” The editor and myself had run together; and at the same time “the argument of the editor is altogether the better of the two, and perfectly conclusive, ” and the gentleman proceeds: “And that, while I do not charge the gentleman to be the author of it, the doctrine implied in his resolution is the most pernicious which can possibly be brought to obstruct the final reconstruction of this Government.” What! the doctrine contained in that resolution, of inquiry the most pernicious that could be offered in this matter of reconstructing the Government? Why, sir, what was that resolution of inquiry? I will read it: "Resolved. That the ComReconstruction be requestedto inquire into the expediency of passing a JtResolution declaratory of the purpose of Congress in the reception of Sens&Reps from the rebellious States, respectively, upon the ratification by them, of the constitutional amendment and the establishment of RFGs not inconsistent with the constitution of the U.S. ” iN.ow, sir, that resolution only calls upon the ComReconstruction, if they eem it expedient, to offer for the consideration of Congress a JtResolution declaratory of the purpose of that amendment. I do not say what that purpose was; I do not undertake }to say., in this resolution of inquiry, what that was. I leave it for the committee who ramed that amendment to tell us what they intended by it. Is there anything wrong in this? But I am impugned as the author of this resolution, and as being the author of a resolution pregnant with mischief. The Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. STEVENs] continues: “But I am not going into the argument, as it might look out, of place after the gentleman has left the floor. I have only thought it proper to say this much in favor of the argument of one who cannot appear here himself, and which I entirely deem conclusive and more satisfactorythan that of the Gentfrom Ohio.” Now, sir, the article from the Daily Morning Chronicle is set forth in the Daily Globe of the 21st of December last; and in that article there is nothing found, if I have read it and construed it correctly, but what I concurred in, and even went beyond, and expressed an opinion even more decisive than that expressed in the paper, that the ratification to be made by thoserebellious Legislatures would signify nothing but their submission, and their disposition here after to be loyal to our Government; nothing more. And I said expressly that, even if this amendment was to be ratified and become a of the Constitution, I should then exact from those States those peoples, if you please, not calling them States a RFG in all respects, before I would vote to receive their Representatives into this House. I make these remarks, Mr. Speaker, as much to set ".right in the judgment of my friendfrom Pennsylvania as for any other purpose whatever perhaps more so, for I think that when the gentleman reads the remarks in the paper and my explanation he will see that he did me injustice when he said I was at variance with the paper, and still further injustice when he said that my resolution looked to evil consequences. My friend once made at me a good humored fling when I happened to differ with him in regard to some one of his propositions by saying that “there was a vacant judgeship somewhere up in northern Ohio.” Well, sir, I acknowledge the hit. But it so happens that I am not and have not been a candidate for that judgeship. Some 20 years ago I might have been pleased to occupy that honorable position if F.ity; had the requisite abil but under present circumstances I have no aspiration that way; none at all. But my friend will pardon me if I call to his attention a very eulogistic notice of himself in this very Chronicle in connection with a seat in the U.S. Senate, which is to become vacant in a short time. We will let one offset the other; and let it be understood that neither of us is under very much temptation in consequence of the offices which are presented to the public view as being those in which we are especially interested. So much in all kindness toward my friendfrom Pennsylvania; and I hope that now we shall part fair friends and go on together, helping to do this great work of reconstructing this great Government which is intended for a great people and for a great time to come. So far as regards the understanding had of the effect of this constitutional amendment by the people during the late canvass I have a.]". say. In understanding, the 1st place, my individual when we voted with so much unanimity to. put that amendment before the for their ratification, was, that it was to e taken as a measure of conciliation, to some extent, between the loyal States and the disaf. fected or disloyal States, and that the latter should be admitted to representation in congress when they should have signified their approbation of these amendments to the constitution, and should have framed their State governments so as to pass the ordeal of congress not otherwise; for I here protest again that, since the rebellion opened, } have never seen the hour when I supposed these States had the right to a representation in the Senate or HoRep of the U.S. And I say further, that no man can come to a logical conclusion on this subject unless, in claiming that those States now have the right to representation in Congress, he maintains that they had the right of representation during every hour of the war. e must meet this question openly and boldly. I say to you, sir, that from the moment when these rebellious States swung loose from the congress and the Government of the U.S and unsheathed the sword of rebellion, an attempted to strike down the Constitution of our common country, from that moment they became severed from the lawmaking power of this Government, and cannot be restored except by the action of Congress. Of this I have no manner of doubt, and upon this subject I have never doubted. I have already given my understanding in regard to the effect of the constitutional amendment when Congress adjourned last July. I say further, that the canvass or campaign in the State of Ohio was carried on upon the basis of the constitutional amendment alone, and I will state my warrant for saying so. The Republican State convention of Ohio adopted the constitutional amendment presented by congress as the height and breadth and length and depth of their platform. They had not another line in their platform; the constitutional amendment was. whole of it. The Republican party went into the canvass upon the strength of that amendment, and in every district, in every county, in every township, we argued the merits of this constitutional amendment before the people, and upon it obtained their votes. I represent upon this floor as radical a district, as anyone of my colleagues from Ohio, and I say to my colleagues and to the members of this House generally that in every speech I made in my district in the 3 counties composing it and those speeches were not a few I advocated this constitutional amendment in all its aspects, and uniformly declared to the people that when that amendment should become a part of the Constitution, and those refractory States should exhibit to us satisfactory RFGs, I should vote to receive their Representatives; and on this question I never yet heard a dissenting voice in my district. The National Republican committee, if I am correctly informed, held forth to the country the fact that the great turning point of the readmission of these outstanding States was the adoption of this amendment to the Constitution. The State convention of NewYork declared the same thing, and their election took place on that hypothesis. So that I claim that those members of Congress who now say that the amendment to the Constitution, if adopted, settles nothing, are in this respect in error. It may not settle everything, but will go a great way toward pacification and reconstruction. Again, sir, if the substitute for House bill No. 543, introduced by my learned friendfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. STEveNs] the other day, should obtain the assent of this House and of the other branch of Congress and become a law, as it may probably, I do not say to my friend now that I shall not vote for this prop. position. I like many of its features well. "I have not much to say against any part of it; but I say this: if this should be adopted and if those outstanding communities should be reconstructed upon this basis and this plan, even then I hold that this amendment to l. Constitution of the U.S. ought by no means to have the “go by.”. We want the security of the guarantee contained in that amendment to the Constitution for all time to come, (no man can doubt that,) even if these States be reconstructed upon the plan submitted by the learned Gentfrom Pennsylvania. Hence, I do most earnestly advise the loyal States, all of the loyal States that will do so, to adopt that amendment to the Constitution; and, as I said the other day, I would earnestly advise the Legislatures of the socalled States of the South to do the same thing, not because they make it a part of the Constitution by doing so but because they express their own sense o the utility of the measure and their accordance in sentiment with it. Mr. Speaker, I am satisfied that the opposition made in the southern States to this amendment to the Constitution arises mainly from the provision contained in the 3rd section. I was informed not many days ago in the town of Petersburg, Virginia where I went during the holidays to view some of the landmarks made conspicuous during the recent war I was informed by some of the gentlemen residents there that they wanted this difficulty settled. I said to them, “Here is the constitutional amendment and you repudiate it.” They replied, “If you can put that constitutional amendment in force without our aid then do it and we will submit to it. We do not so much complain of the provision itself as that we are called into action to vote on it as a art of the Constitution of the U.S. ” pon the hypothesis that their action on it only goes to j.their submission to the terms we are trying to impose, they will permit the loyal States to make this a part of the Constitution of the U.S. by a 3/4ths vote, and then come in and express their acceptance of it.