Mr. JOHNSON. No; but they might have been put there to express more clearly what the author meant. Mr. President, am getting tired, and the Senate is getting tired, and I have not done by any means. Although not immediatcly belonging to the question which I am discussing, it is not inappropriate for oneof the purposes 1 have in view to call the attention of the Senate to another passage in the great work of this same writer, page 389: "It fortunately happensthat in this particular, as in everythinu else, sound obey and humanity are in perfectaccord. What f clay, what assistance, can you expectfrom an oppress people? Do you wish but your conuest may rovo a real addition to your strength, and o well a ccted to you? Treat it as a father. as a true sovereign. I am charmed with the crierous answer recorded of an cmbnssadorfrom rivernnin. Being introducedto the Roman Senate, he was asked by the consul, If we show you clemency, what dependencecan we have on the peace on pyrooucometown for 7 If, replied the cmbnss or, irrant it on reasonable conditions, it will be safe and permanent; otherwis it will not last long. Some took offpnnoat the boladuesosf this speech;but P“Ir?ive ronoia1nS?qslmanbsllwPear.rdteoefmthineg Senate approved of the of a man undo free man. Can it be imaginlaendg, usaagide those wise Sepators. thst any nation, or even any idnidsaivgirdeueaalblewciollndloitniognertheaonntwinhuieteicnoamnpeirlklesdomtoesaunbd mit to it? If those to whom you give pencereceive it voluntar, it may be relied on: what fidelity can You expect. in those whom you wish to reduce to 2 ago. s lavery? the most securedominion, said Camillns is that which is acceptable to those over whom it is exercised." There are many other matters, Mr. President, to which I might advert, but I proceed now very briefly to consider the iarticular question before the Senate and ere it is supposed that the view which I now take is incon sistent with one which. as a member of the ComJudiciary, I maintained a year or What was that? The war was being waged: it was by no means certain how it would result: the Army was in all the southern States; Louisiana was said to be in the keeping of the military; the election it was stated was an election held under the authority and supervision of the military; the same was said in the case of Arkansas; and in that condition of things I agreed to a report which said that it would be improper to admit them until there was an act of Congress: not that it was illegal to admit them; nobody could pretend that. The honorable Senfrom Maine, I think admitted the other day I am not sure that I recollect his speech correctly, butl so understood it thnt perhaps it would be in the power of either branch of Congress to admit Senators or representatives from these States even after the passage of this resolution. What is the case now? The war has been over almost a year. What do you want to find out? Do you want to tindout the theoretical opinions of the citizens? Suppose you do find that they entertain political opinions in theory that are different from your own, is there any disloyalty in that? Cannot a man be a monarchist in the U.S and free from any crime? Who can doubt that? Any Christian sect might say with the same propriety, “ You must think precisely as we think or be punished." That doctrine does not. exist at the present clay. Is there anything in our institutions which renders it incumbent on every man to think that the Government under which he lives is the best Government in the world? I have never an posed that that was any test.of loynlt. The good, sense of the party may be questioned; his wisdom may be ca led into doubt; but that is all, there is no disloyalty in it. Error of judgment there may be, but there is no rnctical crime, and no crime of any sort. Yatnre ives him the judment with which he is en tglowed; and ifin the fair exercise of that judgment he comes to a political opinion different from that entertained by his fellows, is he to be called a criminal? obody, I am sure, will say that that is a just doctrine. Then what are you trying to find out? You go to the South and you examine A, B, and C, to ascertain whether they are disposed to be kind or not to the freedmen. Suppose they are not; suppose they think, some of them or a great many of them, that it would have been better for the freedmen that they should not have been emancipated; that it would have been better for their States that they should not have been emanci lit 0d; that it would have been better for the U.S. that they should not have been emancipated; is there any crime in that? The late President did the same thing. Read his reclamation and you will see that he contemp ated at one time only a gradual abolition; and it is yet a problem, which time alone can work out, what are to be the material results of emancipation. I have my opinion that they will be exceedingly advantageons; but I am notdi osed to fiudfault with m who entertains a itfcu ent opinion, and charge as a inst him disloyalty. I think and have ever thought that slavery is wrong, upon every ground, political and religious; but amI to quarrel with the men who have then ht otherwise, with the Washingtons, with the etfersons, and the Madisons who must have entertained a different opinion practi cally, or at least an opinion that it was not advantageous to have an instantaneous emancipation. ow, I suppose, and my friendfrom Maine sn poses. an we all, perhaps, suppose that the reellion had no just founation; but a great many ople in the U.S., even in the loya States, thought that it bad. There was no injustice, in my opinion, peetruted by the North upon the Sout that eoul not have been corrected, itit was unjust, by the fair administration of the Constitution of the U.S. but a great many thought that the time had come when safety to themselves demanded a separation. They have paid the penalty of the error, and now they are before us asking us, through the proper constituted authority of the country, to pardon the error; they are before us new pledged, if we can take the testimony of their leading men holding high official station. to abide by the result of the trial towhich their doctrine of secession and of slavery has been submitted. They stand before you now admitting that their hopes are centered in the Union, that their safety is there to be found, and there only, and they nrdently implore you to sutler them to come again into your midst, share your duties, participate in your trials. join their counsels to your own for the purpose of making the country even greater than it was in an time of the post. Tlow, what do you say by this resolution? “ You must be kept out until Congress shall by law declare that you ought to be admitted.” When is that to be? I am no prophet: but if the signs of the times are to be relied upon, that is to be just when Congress shall t iink proper; and when they will think proper, and why they will think proper, and what conditions they will annex is all now in the womb of time. Are they to be kept out until that matter is settled by Congress? They will be if you pass this resolution and it is observed. Is it right? I heard it on this floor when I had formerly the honor of a seat.in this body, and I heard it in conversation from time to.tiine, sometimes angrily, sometimes socially, “the southern men cannot be driven to separation, ” and I heard it from others that the northern men could not be driven into hostility as against them. The error of both has been signai. What sort of rebellion have we had? One greater than the world has ever before witnessed. You have crushed it. Now, what do on repose to do? Vattel tells you, treat them in y and then you will have peace; treat them unkindly, deal with them as unequal, treat them oppressively, and the time for a renewed struggle depends only upon their be coming convinced that they have a reasonable chance to make a renewed s esuccessful; and if what on propose to do shall lead to delay, which sup. may be the consequence of it, you will find that the people in the loyal Qates will be divided. They are now asking why is it, when not an arm is raised against the authority of the Government, that we have not peace? Why is it that on the contrary we have every day increased agitation? They see, a great many of them, that one means of having peace and quiet is to take the States back, to give them all the rights which the Constitution secures to them to set the citizens of the States at work. Do this, let them be satisfied that. they have the protection of the Government of the Union, as well ms the protection of their own States, and the South soon will again blos som like the rose; her wealth in the past, great as it has been, will prove to be as nothing compared with what it will be in the future; and my ife for it I think I am warranted in so saying from my knowledge of the character of the men my life for it, let them participate in all the rights which the Government was intended to secureco all, and so far from the country being imperiled, its increased strength, its enhanced power, will date from that happy da., {Ve have passed through 4 years to all of us of nnexampled distress; our own homes have felt the desolation of war; but our homes are as nothingto the homes of the southern people. Where comfort and Instant were to be seen and hospitality was extended to all, there is now nothing but penury and almost absolute want. The women of the South, brought up in luxury and educated to refinement, are now we almost hewers of wood and drawers of water in order to sustain themselves and their children. So it must be until we take them by the hand, throw around them the:2 s of the Constitution, and give them a new birth welcome them among us as brothers, extend to them the right hand of fellowship, and then they and we, when that time shall come Godgrant that it may come at once will pray to Heaven that in no time of the future shall there ever be again a citizen of the U.S. to raise arm against his Government.