Mr. LeBLOND. Of course we on this side will do what is right, but I will not agree to vote with the gentleman. [Laughter] The gentleman says no member on this side has attacked the provisions of the bill. Sir, it is not necessary that it should be attacked. The whole theory of the bill is radically wrong when ou take into consideration the fact that we have a Constitution that we have sworn to support and to be governed by. But, sir, the other side of the House has ignored the Constitution. And here let me say that in the conflict of opinion on that side of the House there is no one who foresaw the difficulties that we were to encounter so well as the distinguished Gentfrom Pennsylvania, {Mr. Steve Ns] At an early period in this contest he foresaw where we were drifting, and for the purpose of meeting it he at once took the position that these States were conquered provinces, whose people were mere subjects to i. dealt with according to the will of the majority of Congress. But who does not remember that when he proclaimed that doctrine in this House there were not within these walls ten men who approved it? Since that period a change has come over the spirit, the do. of the other side, and we now find them, if not yielding themselves willing subjects to his doctrine, at least willing to vote for provisions quite as bad and quite as revolutionary as any that have been indicated by that gentleman. Now, sir, as to the provisions of this bill in its detail. Here you will find in the 5th section of this act that they have provided that any man who has lived in the State of Louisiana one year, though it may have been 20 years ago, may return to that State and vote for the men who are to be elected to the convention to frame a constitution. I will call the gentleman's attention directly to that provision. The 5th section says that The following persons, and no others, shall be electorsand entitled to vote at all electionsheld under the provisions of this act, namely: every male citizen of the U.S., without distinction of race or color, who has attained to the ageof 21years and has residedin Louisiana oneyear, and who has neverborne arms against the U.S. So that you propose by this bill to let in men who have resided in that State at any time for one year go down there and control the elec tious, even against the will of the men whom you claim to be the exclusively loyal citizens of that State. If that is not your intention, why not say that those who shall have resided in the State for one year next preceding the election shall be allowed to vote? But it seems to me that that was intentionally omitted, so that even the “loyal “ citizens of that State might be controlled and that no constitution might be framed that would not meet the views of the party in power. Turn to another section, the 9th. There you give to the military authorities power to take a man out of the hands of the civil authorities and retain him, without limit as to time. Why make that provision? Why not provide a legal remedy in such cases, and let the civil authorities dispose of them? This gives to any military officer there, under certain circumstances, a right to arrest a man, and fixes no time when he shall be required to release him.