Mr. HENDRICKS. I shall not answer that question, for I understand very well the next question the Senator is going to propose, and as that is a judicial question, I am going to leave that until the SCOTUS shall decide it, and perhaps the question will come up from the State of Indiana. We excfude colored people from the State by our constitution and laws. If they come in in contravention of the constitution, we den them the right to vote. y a law passed at the last session of the Legislature, passed by the HoRep as well as the Senate, the House being largely renblican, it is enacted that the negro may testify in the courts of the State provided he came intothe State before that constitutional provision was enacted; but ifhe has come in since, he shall not testif. These questions bring up the very one that to Senator is after. I am not speaking of the white people of Indiana. I am speaking about the right of the State to contro the elective franchise, especially in regard to the colored people, answering the point that my colleague made in his citation from Kent. Now, Mr. President, are these 11 States of the South in the Union? If not, what need is there that we shall amend the constitution? Why amend the constitution in respect to 11 States when you do not allow them to be represented here? If you hold that these States are in the Union, and if you intend ever to let them be represented here, is itnot fair to let them be represented before you change the organic law to their prejudice? Is it not right hat the humblest man, the poorest man, the uiltiest man shall be heard in his defense? the criminal that sheds human blood upon y0ur streets, You will not condemn to death until he has had an opportunity to be heard. You cannot cover up human nature with so much of crime and guilt as that you will deny his voice when he asks to be heard. Then, sir, if 11 States wish to be heard, it"cleven States stand at the door of on Capitol and ask admission, that they shalI be heard before you amend the constitution to their rejndice, will you deny them that hearing? on deny that to them which you concede as a natural right to the poorest, the meanest, the vilest, and the wickedest of our race. If they are not here, we had better not legislate for them, if we do not intend to let them come back. My colleague upon that subject, and it is a very grave subject, has used the following very cloquent language: “If these rebel States constituted stars on your fla. they were as the lost Pleiades gonednrklimz throng l space, unobservant to any human eye. They could not bedetectedby the mightiest telescopic power that tbhreinjugdiciary of the count has ever been able to to bear upon them. hey were not only outot the Union. but they weresubstantially and to all intents and purposes out of existence: and so the Pros ident must have regardedthemin his proclamation.” Thatisa very beantiful figurc, comparing these States to a system of planets going around the central power, the Federal Government. My colleague claims that these revolving stars have shot from their orbits, are lost, out o existence. Why, sir, to carry out his figure as drawn from astronomy a little further, what are the powers that keep the stars in their orbits? 1st, there is velocity that God has given them, which tends to throw them 06 in straight lines, and then there is the attraction to a common center tending to bring them to that common center, and the 2 powers operating eqnally they are held in their orbits. In the States there is a tendency, from an exaggerated view of State rights, to o oil“, but then there is the central power to old them within the Union. Has the central power during the last 5 years been less than heretofore? The constitutional obligation is one of the central powers, the interest of each State to stand by the whole is another of the powers, but during these last 5 years we have resorted to the extraordinary power of war, and that war has brought them a sin within their orbits, and they are seen by the feeblest vision in their position. AsIsaid, Mr. President, it is not my province, nor perhaps would it be exactly in good taste for me to he the defender of the President in recard to his policy. I know nothing of his policy except as I have seen it in his acts, in iis messages, and his proclamations. But in respect to these 11 States and his efforts to brin them into proper relations with the cen tral Iiovernment, I do sustain him. I sustain him, not because I am of his party, but because I am of that common country which demands a restoration of this Union. My colleague and other Senators have attacked the President, in very courteous language, I admit, in language becoming a Senator, in no coarse way, but in eloquent style and with force of argument, with regard to his policy establishing provisional governments. For awhile I hesitated to give my a proval to that policy. It is not strange that Is ould hesitate, because I opposed the acts of usuration which charactenzed to some extentthe ast Administration; but many of you Senators said theSe acts were right when the constitution for the time being was not strictly regarded, when doubtful powers were exercised, and I can hardly see how you can find faultwith the present Executive under circumstances of still greater embarrassment in the exercise of the powers to which he has resorted. I think the President did right in appointing provisional governors and settin up again the State governments; and why? I do not place it upon the war power. The war is over. It was over in May, when the president issued these proclamations and appointed these provisional governors. I cannot place it upon any war power. But, sir, it was the duty of the President, as it is the duty of Congress, to guaranty to the States their RFG and certainl that involves the guarantee of existence. Vhen the war was over, when the people acknowledged themselves obedient to the laws of the country, these States were to some extent disorganized; at least they were not fully organize under this Government; their organization had relation more particularly to the southern confederacy. The president finding them in this disordered condition desired to bring them back, and he gave them all the aid and support he could in their cfforts for that ur ose. As an illustration, I will address the earned Senfrom Ohio, the head of the Territorial Committee. In organizing a territorial government, where does he find the express power in the constitution? He does not find it there. It is not written that Congress may establish a government for the Territories, nor can he find it in the power that gives control over the public lands. That relatesto property; but Congress is authorized to admit new States into the Union. [Mr. wms nodded assent] I am glad that the distinguished Senator agrees with me in that proposition. congress has power to admit new States into the Union, and under that power Congress may set n such a government for tie time being, tor the temporary purpose of enabling the people of a Territory to term a State government. If for the purpose of enablin the people to form a late constitution with a view to come into the Union, Congress may set up a previsional government in the Territor, why is it under the power, or the duty rat er, which is imposed upon Congress and upon the President to arant the existence of the States already in the nion, that that power shall not be exercised by the President by setting up a provisional government to enable the people in all respects to place their States in properrelations to the tederal Government?