Mr. SCOFIELD. Mr. Speaker, what is the whole amount of disloyel population in the southern States? I do not include in this in?niry persons who have been stigmatized as sympathizers” or “cop erhends, ” much less another portion of the emocrotic party, but only those who sought to divide the country into 2 republics and who now regret the failure of their enterprise. The whole amount of white LI"i, population in the 11 confederate States is 6, 097, 524. Deducting from this amount the estimated uumberofloyal peoplein those states, and adding the disloyal scattered through the other 5 slave States, will give the answer to myquestion. Multing this deduction and addition from the most reliable data within my reach, I conclude that the disloyal population in the whole South will not exceed, it indeed it will equal, 5 million in all. Itthe 11 confederate States were readmit ted now (the Constitution and laws remaining unamended) what amount of representation in Congress and the Electoral College would this 5 million be entitled to claim? They would certainly have these 11 States. There could hardly be a.doubt about Kentucky. For if the loyal men of that State, sustained by the power of the Federal Army and the persuasion of Federal patronage, with the young disunionists absent in the South and the old ones disfranchised at home, could scarcely hold their own, what could we expect them to do when these young men have returned, the disfranchisin laws have been swept awa, the Army removed or palsied by orders, and federal atronage at least uncertain? This would give them 24 Senators. There are 4 more States that belonged to the slaveholding class, Delo ware, Maryland, WestVirginia, and Missouri. Is it any stretch of probabilities to suppose that 2 more Senators will be picked up some where in these 4 States by the confederate element? I fear there will be more. This will give them 26 Senators. In the HoRep this population will have as large, if not larger, proportionate representation. By the apportionment of 1861,58 Representatives were assigned to the 11 confederate States. These States will be so districted by the hostile sentiment of their several Legislatures that not one true Union man can be elected. To the other 5 slaveholding States 26 were assigned by the act of 1861. If anyone will take the trouble to look over these districts, I think he will come to the conclusion that even if the laws disfranchising rebels in Maryland, WestVirginia and Missouriremain in force, not less than half of these will be controlled by thein fluence and votes of the late secessionists. This gives them 71 Representatives inthe House. But even this large number must soon be increased. The 2/5ths of the 4 million freedmen which were not counted in the representative basis of the last cen: us must be counted in the census of 1870, and (otherthings remaining the some) odd to that number 13 members more; so that the 5 million disloysl population, as soon as their full power can be felt through the elections, will have at least 26 Senators and 84 Representatives and 110 votes in the Electoral College. This is a low calculation. When we consider the earnestness, or rather I should say the fierceness of these people, the ability, ambition, and courage of their leaders, we may well apprehend that the number will be even greater. But. this number is their own legitimate and certain under the laws as they stand. Suppoeing the entire population of the U.S. to be 35 million now, this 5 million will be just one 7th of the whole, but will have more than 1/3rd the representation in both Houses of congress, and more.than 1/3rd of the Electora College. The same amount of loyal opnlation at the North is represented by on y about half that number. If y factions or party division among the loyalists of the country, they could contrive to secure one 6th more of the representation, they would have n.majorit of the whole, and be able to control Federal legislation, elect the President, and distribute his patronage. When these States are admitted and these people come to have the unabridged control of this twofold representation, how will they de sire to use it? I do not inquire how they possi bly may use it, nor even how they now cXpect or intend to use it, but how, if unrestrained by a united North, it would be their interest and desire to use it. For the perpetuation of the Um? I fear not. They have come back to the Union, we should remember, only by coer cion. TOthem it is it forced bridal. lhey submit to it. but they do not, because they cannot, embrace it in their hearts. The soldiers maimed, Wives widowed, and children orphaned in their bad cause, appeal to theirleaders for the promised support, but the Union has no pensions focthem. The fortunes invested in confederate faith see no hope of realization in the Union. Hatred of the North and its antislavery majorities, the original motive for secession is ten times stronger now than in 1861, an is backed u by $4,000,000,000 of debt, dem ages, on pensions, which, as the insist, could, in a separate government, he evied by an export duty upon the cotton consuming world. The life habits of these people, their loVe of case and domination, their wide, aris tocracy, wealth, and power were all the out growth of an institution which might possibly be revived in a separate republic but which is forever one in the Union. “Confederacy” is o wor that must long be enshrined in their hearts by the tender memories of their fallen kindred, but it must live, as they well know, in the history, traditions, and ballads of the Union, associated with perjury, dishonorable crime, and cruel war. If they should profess to love the Union we could not believe them. It is so unnatural that it would be easier to believe they were hypocrites than that they were monsters. But they are neither h ocrites nor mou sters. They do not love tcUnion, and do not pretend to. It is untruthful men of our own section that prevnricate for them. The same class of men that misrepresented the feelings of the Nor h before the war, and thus deceived the Son and goaded them into rebellion, now misrepresent the feelings of the South to deceive the North and lure it into irretrievable surrender. Before the war they deceived the South and betrayed the North; but now it is reversed, they deceive the North and betra the loyal South. The same perfidi ous breath that carried South the untruthful story of northern hate, and thus rompted the war, comes back now with another story equally untruthful, of southern love. They tell us that the disloyal South is a gentle bride, impatient for the nuptials, when they know that she submits to them with loathing. Have they not laid down their arms? is the argument ative inquiry. No, sir; their arms were taken from them. Have they not submitted? No, sir: they were defeated in battle. There is nothing in their past conduct nor present atti tude that justifies the use of the word submission. Prisoners of war have been taken, but they were released on parole; rebel urn.s have been dispersed, but they have been reorganized as State militia; rebel State governments have been overthrown, but again revived and restored to the old possessors; and forfeitures of life and estates have been remitted, but that is all. Call this clemency, privilege, triumph, victory, what you please, but do not call it submission, with which it has not one shade of meaning in common. We do not need to call witnesses to prove that these people are hostile to the nion and its interests. The history of the human race proves it. Who ever attempts to prove the contrary must 1st show that they are unlike any other people whose nssions, struggles, and defeats are recorded in the annals of the world. But witnesses have been celled Union Generals and rebel generals, Union and rebel citizens, without distinction of party, condition, race, or color and all support under oath the rent historic truth, that a purpose imbibed in infancy, cherished and stimulated by the rostrum, press, and pulpit for a lifetime; 11held by large fortunes, wrung from the toll of s eves, and sanctified by the blood of sons and kindred. has not been and cannot be surrendered to military orders. such o purpose surrenders only to time. I do not present this great truth now by way of reproof or condemnation of these misguided people, bat only bIy way of cantion and warning to ourselves. come to.ie conclusion, therefore, that they do not desire the perpetuation of the Union. If we would remove all restraints and give them freedom of choice they would revive the confederacy at once. They would take advantage of a war with GreatBritain or France to secure their independence, and they would take advantage of their double representation here to promote such a war. if no opportunity of eseape should soon offer, would they not still live in hopes of it and in persistent hostility to the countrys obligations to the soldiers, widows, orphans, and creditors of our war, and friendly to the assumption of similar obligations created h themselves in the interest of the rebellion? ven in advance of their own coming a portion of their vast claims have reached your files. When my colleague [Mr. RANDALL] from the Democratic side proposed that the national faith, pledged in war, should not be broken in peace, there was one voice from Kentucky against it only one by count, but considering the quarter from which it came, multitndine ul in omen. A bill has also been introduced by agentleman, sometimes called the Democratic leader in this House, to repudiate in part the public debt under pretense of taxing it, in vioation of the laws by which it was created. these cannot be regarded as the oddities of one or 2 men, but rather as impulsive confessions of imprudentse outs, too far in advance of the following arm. The purpose will not be generally disclose until the forces are arranged or its execution. I am speaking now only of the dangers that will beset the republic by the allowance of a representation unfriendly to its prosperity and even its existence in such disproportionate numbers. But we should not forget that this act is also a recognition as republican in form of constitutions, we have never seen (except that of Tennessee) and all, except those of Lincoln origin, under rebel supremacy. The white Unionists who have been lboking through 5 dreary years of persecution, lynching, and confiscation to this as their hour of deliverance. will find themselves betrayed into the hands of their old, unhumbled, unrelenting tormentoth. It also consigns the freedmen to the tyranny of old masters, not now as heretofore bribed to humanity by a moneyed interest in the preservation of their chattel estates. 25%., says an honorable gentleman who presents his back offensively to the North as he makes his low obeisance South, 25%. have already erislied. The wish no doubt was father to the thought with the mas tors in whose interest the declaration is made. These, then, are my premises. I will repeat them: 1. There are only about 5 million disloyal population in the country. 2. This population when fully restored to the Union, the Constitution and laws remaining unameuded, will hold more than 1/3rd of its representative power and the supreme control of at least 13 States. 3. They will be interested to use that power for the division of the Union; and, failing in that, for the repudiation of its military and financial obligations. Now, what is to be done? If these States are denied representation, it violates the fundamental principle of republican government. If allowed a dou lo and hostile representation, the Union itself must be destroyed or preserved at the expense of another war. 3 remedies are proposed: 1. Disfranchise some portion of the rebels. 2. Allow all the rebels to vote, but neutralize their disunion sentiments by enfranchising the blacks in these States. 3. Equalize reprewntation by taking as its basis either the number of voters or the poulation, minus the disfranchised classes; so t at, these States shall have no more representation in proortion to their represented people than the ol free States have. Iaither proposition would require an amendment to the Constitution, to be accepted by the rebel States as a condition precedent to their restoration. It is also proposed to couple with either preposition a 2nd amendment, prohibiting the assumption of rebel debts and claims either by States or the U.S. The 3rd proposition has commended itself to much the largest number of Union members, and the amendments to thateffect have already passed this House by more than a 2/3rds vote. This, then, so far as this House is concerned, is the congressional plan of reconstruction. All we ask of the rebel leaders who are wrongly charging us with having no policy at i all, but designing to exclude them foran indefinite period, is a little time to put in form of fundamental law these pledges of future eace. For live years they have been out upon p ague infected seas. Can they not tarry at quarantine for a single session I Stripped of all disguises, herein lies the main disagreement. Shall these States he recognized at once in their present temper, without guarantees of any kind and with a twofold Representation? It is not whether they shall be represented at all; to that we all agree. There may be alittle question of time; a difference of a few weeks or a few months, and that is all. Shall they be represented twice over. once in their own names and once in the name of the negroes? Shall they come in upon a rep Representative basis that clothes a white man of the South with almost as much again political power as a northern man controls? That gives 2 white voters in SCarolina as much voice in the selection of a President and in the leeislation of this Houseas 5 votersin Penu syvania possess I That practically gives to one 7th of your population, disloyal at that, more than 1/3rd of your power? That, sir, is the great question before this House and the American piililic. It is an effort on the part of the Opposition to carry into the polities of the country the old problem by which 16 is made the majority of 49. In England it is called the system of “ rotten boroughs.” l It has long been the subject of political strife, between the free and slave labor counties of Maryland, Virginia, and Tennessee and when it is everywhere else abandoned as a pernicious and antirepublican theory of representation, we are asked to make it the basis of reconstruction in the model Republic. The enactment of these 2 simple and brief amendments, or others similar in purpose, is so absolutely necessary for the preservation of the Republic and the discharge of its obligations to its soldiers and creditors, and is so just and even generous to the insurgents, that they ought to receive the assent of every Union man, especially ofevery northern Union man. The position do not dare to discuss their merits. While some deny that we have any plan of reconstruction, others assail it with insidious and deceptive objections. Some of these I propose to notice here. hirst of all, they complain of the consumption of time. 5 months have passed, and not a rebel admitted, is the complaining accu sation. The Opposition are impatient. They cannot wait. Come in at once, say they, to the “erring brethren.” Do not wait to drop your side arms or exchange your disloyal garments. Bills to protect the loyal men of the South against your pretended violence are endin now, come and help defeat them. e will soon have bills to enlarge pensions and equalize bounties to the soldiers you have maimed and the widows you have made; your advice and votes will be needed. A bill to give bounty land to the “boys in blue” could not be de feated nor the “ butternuts” included without you. A bill to lift the burdens of taxation from the industry of the country and place it upon your foreign confederates, through exported cotton, will need your attention. Hurry up your organizations. Do not wait to heal lips listered with a double oath of broken fealty before you kiss the H01 Evangelism with an other. We have buried, our sons and are languishing to clasp the hands of their murderers. l When once admitted, deny that you ever tried to break up the Government, but swear on all occasions that the Lincoln party were and are the traitors. The complainants have only themselves to blame for much of this delay. Except for their persistent opposition the amendments would have been submitted months ago to the Legislatures then in session in the loyal States, and been assented to, no doubt, by the constitutional number. Except for their own opposition they might now be welcoming back their long mourned friends to seats in these Halls. But they would consent to nothing that did not return them greater in numbers, and more malevolent in purpose. Hence the delay. Him: illw lacrimar. Next we are told that it conflicts with the “Rresidents policy.” What is the Presidents policy? I aver, 1st, that the President, when last authoritatively heard from, was in favor of the principle embodied in each of the proposed amendments. Of the 1st one, 7 because he required the confederate States to adopt it; of the 2nd one, because he has repeatedly declared himself in favor of making the number of voters the basis of representation. I aver, 2nd, that he does not consider the status of the States such, that their assent to constitutional amendments cannot be required as conditionsrecedent to their restoration, because he irected Mr. Seward to inform these States that their as sent to the amendment proposed in the last Congress was “indispensable” to restoration; and because he has not himself dealt with them as if they were States already in the Union. When the confederacy fell they were in full operation under governments origi nally organized in the nion. Governors, Legislaturcs, judges, and a full set of county and township officers were at work under constitutions once declared to be republican in form by the U.S. These governments were regular unless you assent to the doctrine of forfeiture, for they had political continuity, what the church people call a os tolic succession. Yet they were destroy e by the Presidents order and new ones extempo rized in their stead. From that time to this, in these States, the breath of the President has been the law of the laud. Mr. Johnson went much further in this direction than his predecessor. Mr. Lincoln established governments only in States where he found none existin before, but Mr. Johnson 1st destroyed exrsting governments and then supplied their places with those ofhis own creation. So, both by words, and actions which speak louder than words, the President assen ts to every principle involved in the congressional policy of reconstruction. Indeed, the 2 ol icies could not well conflict, because they reate to different subjects. The one creates or revives State organizations, the other renews their Federal relations. When these O anizations were complete, and the States rea y to apply to Congress fora return to the Union, the Presidents policy was ended. His work was all done. The rest was for Congress. So he directed his SecyState to inform governor Sharkey, July 24, 1865, Governor Marvin, September 12, 1865, and so he informed us in his annual message. If he has changed his policy since then it is hardly worth while to inquire what it is now, for his principles are written in water. I do not wish to disguise the fact that while he approves the 2 amendments and believes the power exists to require their adoption as conditions of return, he thinks it unnecessary to insist upon an terms additional to those imposed by himse f. It is in this opinion that his (1 persecutors, the defeated enemies of the Union, the foiled plotters of his assassination, have taken heart, and with cruel malice cons ired with northern sympathizers to ur sue imwith their unrelentingfriendship. Their last hope for the destruction of this country lies in the seduction of its friends. War failed them, they resort to diplomacy. The President was not much moved by their threats, will he be seduced by their flatter? If so, let me assure those of our friends who are disposed to supress their own convictions in hope to detain him and his patronage in a little select court party, that they might as well exercise a reasonable liberty of o inion. For if he ever determines to trust is political future to an body besides the great earnest. trium hant Ynion organization that elected him, e will have sense enough to put them aside as mere nobodies in popular strength, heartless friends and harmless enemies, as courtiers always are, and ush straight for the "southern brothered, ” rebel led opponents of apermanent and peaceful Union. n that event his children and friends may well rejoice that the past, at least, is secure. His patriotic thoughts of the last 5 ears will still live, although only to reprove im. Again, it is said by way of excuse, “Why not admit such Union men as Fowler, Stokes, and Maynard, of Tennessee?” Because it is not a question about men. Shall a disloyal district, while it is still in a disloyal spirit, be declared entitled to representation with only half as many represented people in it as we require for a district in the orth? That is the question. Catain Semmes ran up the Union flag when e wished to decoy an unarmed merchant vessel under the power of his guns, but replaced it with the pirate emblem when he had secured his victim. The names of these patriots are hung out to dny to secure representation to a rebef constituency behind them. but they will be hauled down at the 1st election and rebels put up in their stead. You may think you are only recognizing the Union flag, but when it is too late you will find your selves alongside the Alabama and in the power of its pirate crew. But it is said in rely, “life will not admit disloyal men even ife ected.” How can you hel yourselves? Ifa whole delegation from SCarolina. for instance, present themselves to the Clerk of the last House and ask to be placed on the roll, prior to organization, and tender him the certificate of their election signed by the Governor and sealed with the sat seal of that most. sovereign State, shall the Clerk say which is loyal and which not? I an ose uoL After the organization, in which alfJ have participated, and all have been qualified and taken their seats, will you get up an inquisitorial committee to explore the secret recesses of their conse iences and be father confessors to their sins? “No, but the iron clad oath will exclude them.” Do you not know, sir, that almost every man who is in favor of admitting those States without conditions is also in favor of repealing that oath? They already denounce it as an odious and unconstitutional test. The SecyTreasury and the PostMGenl, backed up by a message from the President, ask its repeal so far as regards their Depts, thus making rebels as eligible as Union soldiers to appointments here, and under such lead I exto see it swept away, and so do most of the gentlemen who are now urging us to lay aside a real safe guard and trust to this cobweb of a morning. But suppose we could in this way contrive to dictate to these people who they should and who they should not elect, what kind of representation would that be? We say to them, “you are free to select your representatives, but mind that you select such as suit us, not yourselves.” You call that representation? I call it obedience. We propose to extract the envenomed fang of the serpent before he is uncaged, and you to bind him with test oaths afterward. suppose, again, you could manage to exclude in this way those who had been engaged in the rebellion, do on not know that a rebel constituency could find a fit representation outside that list, and all the more dan rous on that account? If they had none at ome they could colonize from the North. Again, maguanimity is invoked as a shield of desertion. A great nation, it is said, can afford to be magnanimous. Of course it can; but let us see how this is. For 4 years these people made war upon us without cause or even plausible excuse. Before they began it, we egged them in great humility to withhold from the country this terrible desolation. In tears we warnet them of the punishment that must follow. Our entreaties and warnings were received in the rebel capital, so their telegraph informed us, “with peels of laughter.” They fired upon us while we were yet upon our knees begging for peace and union. The contest once begun, was conducted on our part with great forbearance and within the strictest military law. We even returned for a while their fugitive slaves. On their part it was conducted not only with the condemned system of cruel guer rilla and piratical warfare, but with fire, ponson, yellow fever, and assassination. The estates of Union men within their power were confis cated, and have never yet been restored, and Union men were hung for treason to their pretended government. You tell us they have suffered. So have we. Peace has come at last; business prosperity will return; the insignia of mourning wrll be laid aside; but in the heart of every family there is an unspoken sorrow that will sudden life even to the grave. Now, we are admenished to be magnanimous to the authors of all this suffering. I accept the admenition, but I submit that we are so already. The law condemned them to death, and we have pardoned them. Their estates were forfeited, and we have restored them. Not a traitor has been hung; not one convicted; not one tried; not a dozen arrested; but many have been honored as rulers in States they only failed to ruin. The high sounding eloquence of the Gentfrom NewYork, [Mr. RAYMOND] calling upon us to admire the “courage and devotion with which these bad men prosecuted a cruel war against our kindred, our homes, and our country for 4 years, has scarcely subsided when our tears are invoked over their self inflicted sufferings. Thus at this end of the avenue we are alternately called upon to admire and pity them, while at the other the green seal is kept hot with its work of clemency clemency often unsolicited, sometimes contemned. We have even ordered historic inscriptions to be erased from captured cannon at W est Point, that the boys educated at the exease of a Government their fathers could not quite destroy might not be irritated. What more can we do 1 What more can gentlemen ask in the name of magnanimity? “Give to this one 7th of your po uIation more than 1/3rd of your politiea power?” Is that what you ask, and call iton y magnauimity to the false men of the country? Call it rather treachery to the faith fill, or if that sounds too harsh, call it submission, surrender, what you like, but for the sake of truth let no one call betrayal of country and friends magnanimity to enemies. Again, sir, the effort to cut off the excess of this unpatriotic and sectional representation is ascribed to party motives. Is not the Opposition exposed to the same charge? Is not the Democratic party as anxious to secure friends as we are to avoid enemies? For the last 5 years they have been beaten everywhere. Every election has proved to them that they were owing smal by large degrees. “Would to od that night or the rebels would come” has been their aily prayer. Does their haste to embrace the misguided brethren dome solely from pure love and affection? Is it not possiblethat their passion is somewhat like that of “The immortal Captain Wottlo, Who was all for love and a little for thobottlo 7” Is it not possible that they look a little to party, too? That they long not only for the alliance but the leadership of the South? They must remember that this leadership was Generally able and always consistent however unwise. It was not under that lead that they proclaimed both secession and coercion unconstitutional; that the war for the Union was constitutional, but there was no constitutional mode of conducting it; that an army should be raised, but volunteering was impracticable and drafting unconstitutional; that it was right to raise money, but wrong to tax or borrow; that they were opposed to emancipation, but not in favor of slavery. It was not under that lead that AndrewJohnson was denounced as Lincolns satrap when he consented to be provisioual governor of a State from which teold Governor and Legislature had run away, and cheered as a strict when he drove out the Governors an Legislatures of half a dozen States and supplied their places with appointees of his own. s it not probable that, tired of their contradictory and hypocritical position, they crave the undissembling leadership of Breckinridge and Hunter, Davis and Toombs, as much as we can possibly dread it? As another excuse for opposition to this plan of restoration it is said there are other he qualities in representation that ought to be removed as we 1 as this. An honorable Gentfrom Pennsylvania complains that the 6 eastern States have each 2 Senators, while NewYork and other large States have no more. It is true that some of the eastern States are small; but the Constitution provides that each State, whether large or small, shall have 2 Senators; and it further provides that while that instrument may be amended in other respects, with the assent of 3/4ths of the States, in this respect it shall not be amended without the assent of all the States. But why oint only to the eastern States to illustrate the inequality of senatorial representation? The best illustration of it is not to be found there. The population of these States is 3, 135, 223. In the South you can find a smaller popntation with a larger representation in the Senate. The population of Arkansas, Texas, Florida, SCarolina, WestVirginia, Maryland, and Dela ware is only 3, 032, 761. Here are 7 States with more than 100,000 less population than the 6 eastern States, 1/3rd of that being negroes, with 14 Senators, 2 more than NewEngland. Why did not the gentleman make his point on these States? Was it because the eastern States are free and loyal and theothers were slaveholding, and in part disloyal? and why, just in this connection, does he comlain that bounties are paid for catching fish? Tie never complained when higher bounties were paid for catchin men and women for the southern market. hese are the old complaints of the South, warmed over, in anticiation of its return, groundless, no doubt, but if ever so just, furnishing no good excuse for allowing to the complainants a twofold representation in this House. Once more we are reminded that taxation and representation should go together. True, sir, but that would not entitle them to a double representation, nor deprive Congress of a reasonable time for deliberation as to the extent of the right and the best mode of securing it. But if it is meant that they are entitled on the score of taxation to instantaneous, unconditional, and disproportionate representation, I must beg leave to inquire, where are the immense taxes aid by them, upon which to base such extraor innry claims? The loyal people of the country have been paying burdensome taxes, 8 million perday, impose by their misconduct, but when and where have they paid taxes? For the last 5 years they have paid none, and the amount they are just now beginning to pay is too trifling for argument. If the right of representation could be acquired by imposing taxes 11 on others or by probery of the government, t cir claim would be indisputable. T hey robbed the southern postoffices of money, stamps, and mails; the arsenals and military and naval depots of ammunltion, arms, and clothing; the customhouses and sub Treas uries of goods, bonds, and money: and the NewOrleans mint of $600,000 in gold and have never made restitution. But they have did ver few taxes, and long before they will be.caled upon to do so a fair and adequate Representation will be accorded them. But the have still another argument the one relie upon when all others fail, their refuge from ise omfiture in every other field of debate and that is what they call the constitutional argument. When they find themselves unable to maintain in discussion the propriety of allowing the disloyal population a twofold representation, the half to Represent themselves and the other half to misrepresent the loyal people, white and black, in their midst; when they can no longer screen themselves behind the “ Presidents policy, ” words of indefinite meaning; when their aspersion upon our motives is repelled by showmg that they have as strong party interest in forming an alliance with the rebels as we possibly can have in trying to prevent it; when their taxation theory is demolished by a report from the SecyTreasury, they fall back upon the constitutional right of States to representation. They will retreat no further. his is their last ditch in debate and here, “ In Dixies land " They take their stand To live or die for Dixie." Mr. Speaker, we are in an anomalous condition. the Constitution does not especiallyprovide for the difficulties with which we are surrounded. Our fathers could not believe that so large a portion of the American people could be so barbarized by slavery as to undertake such stupendous crime. They did not provide for what they could not foresee. There are no precedents on file to guide us. This is the 1st disunion rebellion. Ours will be the 1st precedent in reconstruction, and the last on if it is justly and wisely made. There are objcclions, lausible or otherwise, to every theory that has been or can be advanced as to the status of these States. My colleague [Mr. Srsvnus] suggested that their present position was very much like that of California after the Mexican war. A score or more of speeches have been made to show that there are objections to this theory. The Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. SHELmnaneaa] suggested that these State governments had perished in the rebellion, and that now new ones, republican in form, should be orinated by Congress. Objections were raised to this theory. The Gentfrom NewYork [Mr. Ramona] suggested that new governments must be originated and properguarantees and conditions could be imposed, but these things should be done by the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy as the terms of surrender. Objections have been raised to that theory also. Others still take the position that inasmuch as new constitutions and new governments have been established in these States originating in an irregular or revolutionary man nor, that it is the duty of Congress, under the 4th article and 4th section of the Constitution, to see that they are republican in form, and in the discharge of that duty, require such conditions or larantees as the ssfet of the Union, in their judgment, demands. T is, too, is objected to. An honorable Gentfrom Pennsylvania at the other end of the Capitol, with some self conceit, as it seems to me, sets down all these reconstruction suggestions or theories as mere whimsies. He has a plan of his own to restore the Union and get rid of traitors. It is simple in theory and cheap in execution. He will execute it himself with only the aid of a constable. Whenever a rebel shows his head, he and his constable will pounce upon him like a Buchanan marshal on a flying negro. He will put him where no rebel ever went before with is consent in the old Capitol Prison. If the honorable gentleman really thinks that his plan is practicable, why does he not set about its execution? His intended victims swarm through the Ca itol and the White House, and 2 or 3 dozen of them are asking admission to Congress. There are objections to this the ory. Indeed it has been tried. It was Buchan ans lan for suppressing the rebellion, but it failed: I Now, sir, the theory of the Opposition, based upon the 2nd and 3rd sections of the 1st article of the Constitution, under which members from the rebel States are to be admitted to these Halls without our leave, is that the right of a State to representation cannot be forfeited or lost so long as these 2 sections remain unaltered. Is there no objection to this theory? Why, it concedes the right of representation during the whole war. Their members could have entered this Capitol at any time and voted as the interest of the confederacy required. If the war had lasted 50 years instead of 4 the right would have run through all that time. Nor would it have ceased if our armies had been overpowered and the confederacy left unmolested. After 100years of so aration, they might still vote for President an send members to congress. Unless you admit the doctrine of forfeiture, you cannot avoid this conclusion. Aside from this doctrine, nothing but an amendmerit of the Constitution could deprive them of this right. But the Constitution could not be amen ed, because these 11 States are more than one 4th of the whole, and the assent of some of them would be necessary for any amendment; and to deprive them of Senators the assent of every one would be necessary. The advocates of this theory, to avoid this result, concede that the right of representation would be forfeited by success. But how? The Constitution is not O anged by the result of a battle. There it is, just as it was before. If they lost nothing by defeat would they by success? They lost nothing by secession and unsuccessful war, you say, because these were unconstitutional. Can they lose anything, then, by victory? Would notthat beunconstitutional also? “Butwe would acquiese e.” Well, suppose we should; would not acquiescencebe unconstitutional and void? Wherein the Constitution are we authorized to acquiese e in a division of the Republic? If their ordinance of secession was void would not our consent to it be equally void? If the ordinance was void can it be rendered more so by defeat or less so by victory? Some of thee vocates of this theor, to avoid this reasoning, concede that the rit of representation is forfeited or suspened during “contumacy.” This cruel word to characterize the great rebellion is not original with me. It is the word maliciously chosen by our conservative friends who are determined to make treason odious. I wish the printer, to inclose it with inverted commas, that such severity of language may not be ascribed to me. But who is to decide when the suspension begins and when it ends? The State? If so, that is no suspension at all. A right that can be taken up and laid down at pleasure cannot be said to be suspended. ls Congress the judge? Then I submit that by secession from the U.S., by the formation of a new confederacy, by 4 years of terrible war and 5 of scornful refusal, these States would become a little contumacious, and Congress would be justified in suspending their rights until the legislation necessar to make representation fair and easily cool he agreed upon and passed and that is all that anybody here prouses to do. This appeal to the Constitutibn for authority to hand the Government over to the unrepentant plotters of its destruction, is but a contin nation of the licy pursued by the Opposition for the last 5 years. During that period they have raised a cry about the Constitution many times, but always in opposition to good measures orin advocacy of be ones. When it was 1st proposed to coerce the rebellion and save the Union, and at every following step toward apparent success, they cried, “unconstitutional.” It was unconstitutional to raise an army or march it into the sacred soil of the South. It was unconstitutional to issue bills of credit to meet the expenses. It was unconstitutional to close a rebel ort or arrest a rebel spy, to proclaim martial law in a rebel country, or to appoint a provisional governor for conquered Louisiana or abandone Tennessee. Loo back through the debates of the Opposition; there is nothing constitutional but slavery and rebellion, nothing so unconstitutional as coercion and emancipation. Judging from these debates, the Constitution was especially framed to repress liberty, punish fidelity to the Union, shield oppression and honor treachery and great crime. Those war measures are all constitutional now. Great light is thrown n on the Constitution by the surrender of Lee. fhe gleam of successful bayonetsillumines the dark understanding of pro slavery quiliblers. lint alas! the light of success shines only on the past. All the future is still unconstitutional. [he “unconstitutional, disunion, abolition war” is rendered constitutional by the victory of our soldiers, but the effort to scour; to the country the fruits of that victory by appropriate legislation is as unconstitutiona as ever. Here I close my defense of the Republican policy of restoration. Shall that policy be adopted? Not by this Congress, it is said because enough conservative Republicans will unite with the Opposition to defeat it. Then, by falsely charing upon the Union party nonaction and lactlr of nrpose, it is he ed that 0.Congress can be e ected next fall w rich will repeal the test oath and admit the rebel States without guarantees or conditions of any kind and with a representation always excessive and now enlarge by emancipation. Without the enlargement ( which will not be attained until after the next census) the 11 confederate States will hire 80 votes in the Electoral College, controlled entirely by the late insurgents, namely: Alabnmn 8 Mississippi. 7 rlrnnnrul 5 Texas 6 Louisiana. " Virginia Tennessee. They will need 77 more to elect a President. Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, and Delaware, States with strong confederate proclivities, will, it is claimed, furnish 30 one, while the other 46 can be made up by the Democrats of NewJersey, NewYork, and Connecticut. The classification of votes by which the President would thus be elected, would stand confederates 80, semi confederates 81, Democratic 46. This presidential scheme will undoubtedly fail, and yet it is the only one that has the slightest chance of success. If the Union party can be beaten at all, it must be by this or some similar combination. Suppose it successful, then, what would be the character of the new Administration? 4 members of the Cabinet would beloag to the 80 confederate votes and the other 3 to the 77 from the northern and border States. A lpresidential appointments at home and abroad must be made on the same line of division. If, as is alleged, this combination could also carry a majority of Congress, the confederates would have a majority of that majority, and in caucus ( ng their allies the Clerk) would demand WSpeakerand a majority of all committees, such as the Ways&Means, Claims, and Pensions, to which their peculiar interests might be referred. Pensions must then be surrendered or divided with confederate claimants; service in the Union Army would be an impedimentto political success, and the Treasury, supplied by the industry and econolny of the N orth, would be steadily absorbed in confederate damages. Then our creditors might count their worthless bou s and learn exactly how much it cost them to reclaim their fugitive masters. Then the pensionless widows and orphans of our valiant dead might bemoan in overty and neglect theingratitude of a Republic saved by a husbands and fathers blood and then our surviving soldiers must conceal their honorable se ars to save a humble position in the capital they helped to reserve for the enemy. Then, sir, we will a lsee, feel, and realize what the Opposition, in different phraseology, cqmstantly assert, that the object of the war was to force the rebels to become our rulers.