Mr. RAYMOND. Mr. Speaker, I regard the action which this House may take upon the bill now before it as of very great importance. The bill embodies principles which touch very nearly the fundamental principles of our Government; and it proposes measures which must affect in avery serious manner the peace and welfare of the country. I venture to hope, sir, that every member of this House will Mind to its consideration a mind unbiased by prejudice and uninfluenced by passion, and that he will act upon it with sole and exclusive reference to its probable effect upon the pros crity and welfare of our common country. line w how difficult it is to withstand the influence of habit and association, personal and political. upon our action here; but. if there ever was an occasion when it was incumbent upon each one of us to do all in our power thus to emancipate ourselves from undue and improper influences, I think, sir, that occasion is offered by the bill which now awaits our action. When this Congress met, sir, now 7 months ago, the war against the rebellion had been closed for halfa year. The POTUS, exercising what he believed to be his rightful authority as the chief Executive of the nation and Commander in Chief of its armies, had set in motion the machinery of government in the States where it had been suspended by rebellion. had appointed provisional governors, by whom, under his authority, conventions and Legislatures were summoned, elections werc held, and those governors, Legislatures, and conventions took steps to bring the States back to their normal condition, so far as exercising the power of self government was concerned. When we met in December last but little remained to be done to complete the work of restoration. The temper of the people in the southern States was that of submission and loyal acquiescence in the results of the war. All that remained was to heal the wounds the war had made and embody in proper form the principles it. had established. At an earl day of the session, as early as was proper an convenient, I stated, in the course. oIf some remarks on the general subject, what thought Congress ought. to do, the specific action it ought to take, to complete the work of restoration; and with the leave of the House, as it is very brief, I will read the paragraph in which that statement was embodied: “In the 1st place.I think We ought to acct: t the present Ilatua of the southern States qandr ear them as having resumed, under the Presidents guidance tjntal ction their functions of self government in the m" Ienn. the2ndplace, I think this House should de admitting the admission of Representatives by districts. None but loyal menwho can take theoii th we may prescribe and holding all others asdisquali fled; the Senateacting.at its discretion, in the same wa"yIin regard to representatives of States. think, in the! m1place, we should provide by lraigwhtfsor giving to the freedmen of the South all the “In of citizensin courtsof law and elsewhere. the 4th place, I would exclude from federal olhccthe 1051ing actorsin the conspiracy which led to the rebellion in every State. “In the 5th place. I would make such amendmentsto the Constitution as may seemwiseto Cun gress and the States. aclina free i!and without eoer c"( and 6th, I would takesuch measuresand precautions by the disposition of military forces as will preserveorder and prevent the overthrow, by usur pation or otherwise in any State. of its republican (mmof government.' Nearly all of these points have been covered by the action which Congress has already taken. The status of the southern States has been substantially recognized by both Houses in their action and their recommendations. No one in either House proposes to change or disturb it. We have provided, not only by law, but by an amendment of the Constitution, for giving to the freedman of the South all the rights of citizens in the courts of law and elsewhere and for protecting him in their enjoyment. We have also providaed by an amendment of the Constitution for excluding from office the leading actors in the rebellion. We have adopted such other amendments to the Constitution as seemed to us wise and essential, and we have now just passed a resolution directing them to be submitted to the several States for their ratification. Congress adopted those amendments because it believed the oughtto form apart of the constitution, and Ivoted for them for that reason, and for that reason alone. I discussed them on their merits. I declined to discuss them otherwise. I voted for them on their merits, and not as part and parcel of any scheme of reconstruction or restoration, except to this extent: that I believed their adoption here would promote the tranquillity of the country, and that their embodiment in the Constitution would restore liarmonyto the Union and secure the future safety of the Republic. Those amendments have now gone to the several States, and if adopted by 3/4ths of all the States by 3/4ths of the 36 States that compose this Union they will become valid to all intents and purposes as a part of the Constitution of the U.S. I deem it highly important that these amendments should he acted upon in all the States, by Legislatures chosen by the icople with reference to this very subject. ldo not hold that this is necessary to their validity; but I do think that justice to the people, justice to the country, and a true and wise regard for the requirements and spirit of the Constitution demand that it should be submitted to Legislatures not elected without reference to it, but to Legislatures chosen by the people for the express purpose of acting upon it. We must remember that we who have voted upon these amendments were elected to Congress without the slightest reference to the important question upon which we were thus called to act. The question of amending the Constitution was not then before the public. The people have had no 0 portunity to act upon it, either directly or in irectly. It does not seem just that important amendments to the Constitution should be proposed by a congress and ratified by Legislhtures while not a member of either was elected with any reference whatever to that subject. Certainly, great moral force. would be given to the amendment if it were adopted by members chosen.by the People with special reference to this paint. But, sir, in my previous remarks, from which I have already quoted, I insisted that the States, in voting upon these amendments, should “ act freely and without coercion." I regard that, sir, as of vital importance. Amendments to the Constitution forced upon an unwilling people will never command the respect essential to their full validity. They will always be regarded as badges of injustice, as permanent and indelible marks of inferiority, and whatever acquiescence they may command will be reluctant and constrained, not the cheerful obedience which a free people will always yield to constitutions and laws they have freely made., This bill, sir, violates that fundamental condition. It seeks to coerce the States lately in rebellion into the ratification of these amendments. It denics them representation unless they do ratify them. The 1st section of the bill, after reciting the amendments adopted by Congress, enacts “That whenever the above recited amendment shall have become part of the Constitution of the U.S and any State lately in insurrection shall haveratified the same, nudshall have modified its constitution and lawsin conformitytherewith, the Sens&Repsfrom such States. if found duly electedand qualified, may. after having taken the required oathsof office, be admitted into Congress as such." Here are 3 thin 5 required as conditions without which no soulern State shall be admitted to representation in Cengress: 1st, the above recited amendment must 1st “have become part of the Constitution of the U.S.” that is to say, it must 1st have been ratified by 3/4ths of all the States; 2nd, it must be ratified by each of the States latel in rebellion seeking representation; and 3rd), that State must have modified its constitution and laws in ednformity therewith." Now, sir, the 1st of these conditions is not within control of the States upon which they are imposed. Suppose every southern State should ratify these amendments and enough northern States should refuse, to defeat them; must southern States be denied representation for the default of others? This revision, sir, puts it in the power of the NewEngland States with 3 others to exclude the southern States from representation forever. I am sure congress can never sanction so gross a wrong. But my objection to this bill goes further than this. I hold that we have no right, no power, under the Constitution of the U.S. to im ose such conditions of representation at alli We sit here as a Congress to exercise, not unlimited powers, but only such powers as are dele ated to us by the Constitution of the U.S. We have none of the sovereignty, the omnipotence, that is claimed for the Parliament of England. It is one of the distinctive features of our government that we live under a written Constitution, by which the powers conferred upon the Government and upon each of its depts are expressly defined. All the power we have comes by express grant; it is conferred upon us by the Constitution. The constitution says Congress shall have power to do certain things, which are enumerated and distinctly set.forth, and then it is expressly declared that the powers not delegated are “ reserved to the States or to the people thereof.” We can, therefore, do nothing which the constitution does not empower us to do, either in express terms orby necessary implication fro the terms employed. Now, if I am right in this, I ask anyone here to point me to the clause of the Constitution which confers upon Congress a right to Say that Representatives from any State shall not be received into Congress until that State shall perform certain acts, make certain laws, or do certain things which we may dictate., Wliere is it. in the Constitution? Is it embod ied in any article? Is it implied in any clause, either directly or indirectly? I cannot find it. Ou the contrar, Ifind an express declaration in the article which empowers Congress to propose amendments tot e Constitution an ex‘ plicit provision, that“ no State shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate without its own consent, ” even by an amendment of the Constitution. This bill proposes to deprive States of such equal su 'rage by a law. It proposes to do by enacting a law what congress and the States together cannot do by amending the Constitution. I must maintain, until I am shown to the contrary, that we have no power under the Constitution of the U.S. to pass such a bill as this, or to enforce its provisuons if it should become a law. I am told, however. that the law of conquest is higher than the Constitution, and that we may, under that law, exercise over those States the rights of conquerors and dictate to them such terms as we please. I have at previous stages of this discussion, or of the discussion of this general subject, so fully expressed my Opinion upon this point, and my reasons for it, that I will not enter into that argument again. In my judgment the war just closed was a war against rebellion. I hold that while it crushed the rebellion it did not impair, to any degree or extent, the validity, force, or binding authority of the Constitution of the U.S or under that Constitution. On the contrary, it reaffirmed and reestablished the authority of the Constitution in all its fullness over all the States and over every dept of the government of the U.S. That Constitution is today for us, for Congress, for the Pros ident, for every State, and forever Legislature and for every court in every State, the “supreme law of the land." We have crushed the rebellion which disputed its sovereign authority, but we thereby only confirmed and reiestiiblished its supremacy. We have achieved no conquest over that, and no law of conuest touches that in any particular. We are ouud by its provisions, we are restricted by its prohibitions, now precisely as we were before t 10war. Ham told, furthermore, that the law of necessity requires us to impose these conditions upon the admission of representatives from the States lately in insurrection, and that the law of necessity su crsed cs all other laws. certainly not the law of military necessity. No one pretends that any military necessity now exists. I am not prepared to concede that we have ever set aside the Constitution of the U.S., even under the military necessity which the war was supposed to create. In my judgment the Constitution furnished as with power to carry the country through the war' and we have not. violated its provisions we have exercised no power not include within its permissions, even in the contest from which we have just emerged. But the w is over. Military necessity no longer exists. Is 'it, then, a matter of political necessity that we should exercise the pmver asserted in this bill? I am told that unless we do the South will gain by votes what it lost by arms. The JtCommee of 15, in their report, assert that if members from the southern States he admitted into congress the rebels will gain by votes on its floor, y legislative action, by taking part in the Government, what they lost on the field of battle. Now, sir, I will not stop to remind Congress of what Congress seems much disposed to for get, that this is a Government of the people; that the people of the whole country an all the States of the Union are not only entitled.but are bound by solemn obligations to take part in that Government; and that whatever the people gain by votes they gain legitimately and in accordance both with the Constitution and the principles that lie at the foundation of our Government. But, not dwelling upon this point, I deny the existence of any such danger. he apprehension is plausible perhaps. Judging from the past we may naturally fear‘ that the political action of the South may again be hostile to the Government, but a very little reflection will show how small is the peril which is thus involved. There was a time when there was reason to fear the ascendency of the South in the government of the nation. There was a time when the South, as a separate section with in the rights, duties, or obligations of the States“ institutions hostile to the general good, seemed likely to rasp the sovereignty of the nation and wish? it with exclusive regard to its own ambition and its own interest. That time of renldanger was when the Missouri compromise was repealed, and Kansas was likely to come into the Union as a slave State. If she had thus come in the number of free and slave States would have been equal. But then the South had elements of political power which made he! formidable. She had wealth. She monopolized the best cotton of the world. Her cotton, sugar, rice, and tobacco swelled the vast volume of our commerce and regulated our exchanges with Europe. She had for political leaders men of great intellects, of iron will, of towering ambition, men lit to struggle for empire, and able to infuse their own bold and 8u(t lCl0l18 tempers into the rest mass of the southern people over whom their influence was absolute and unbounded. She hadanumerous population, active, aspiring, and bold a generation ofyoung men trained in the schoo of Calhoun and Meduifie, nursed in the doctrine of State rights and State sovereignty, taught to believe in the right of secession, and edu cated in the faith that the South was the victim of northern tyrann. The South had the institution of slavery, an institution powerful beyond conception, as a bond of union to the southern States. llIenaced and assailed by the North, threatened with destruction from every quarter, obnoxious to the moral sentiment of the civilized world, slavery gave the South, as a political power, unity of action, compactness, oree, ener, and influence in the national councils snc as no other single instrumentality ever gave to an section of this country from the beginning 0 its history. It gave her, too, an alliance with the Democratic party of the northern States, a party powerful always by its traditions and its popular sympathies; powerful by the great men who had distinguishe and controlled it; by what it had done and by what it had attempted. Sla very enabled the South to make an alliance offensive and defensive with this Democratic party of the northern States, and the 2 together wielded the power of the nation for a ong series of years, and but for the over wcening ambition of slavery would have continued to wield it for many years to come. Then, indeed, the southern States were for midable; then we had reason to fear their er manent mccndency; the country felt the anger, and the people came up to the rescue. It was then, when hot danger became imminent, when it pressed itself upon the feelings, attention, and fears of the whole nation; it was then the Republican party was formed and checked this aggression upon the freedom and liberties of the Republic. That party was formed in 1856, and it fulfilled its mission; it triumphed and checked the aggression of sla very. It turned back in its career of triumph, not only the institution of slavery, but the Democratic party, which had become its ally. It relieved thle nation from the exacting sway which had been fastened upon it, and restored our country to the position where it could a sin exercise the rights of a free and independent people is it at the present time? Has the South this power now? Suppose we assume that the old division still exists, that there are still 2 political sections in our country, one slave, the other free, still struggling for ascendency; what are their relative numbers and stren th? The South has been diminishing, while teNorth hasi been increasing. New States have been added to the North year by year, until now, while the southern States while the slave States, if you choose so to designate them still the former slave States, even counting among them Maryland, Kentucky, and Dela ware, number but 14, the free States number 22. In 1850, after California had been admitted, the free States were 16 and the Slave States 15 in number. If this old division still existed, the slave States would have 28 members of the U.S. senate, while we of the North would have 44. In this House they would have 73, while we should have 169. Thus we should have more than 2 to one in this branch of the national Legislature. But I am told the South is to have an augmented strength here in consequence of an, increased representation growin out of the emancipation of the slaves in the southern States. Well, sir, this is worth consideration. I am very glad that we have adopted a constitutional amendment which will remedy that inequality; for it is unquestionably an inequality, though it is one that has existed from the very foundation of our Government. But, sir, the southern States previous to the war had 4 million slaves, 3/5th s of whom were represented on this floor; that is to say, they were entitled to the full representation of their white population and of 2,400,000 more. The slaves of the South thus gave the South 20 additional members, taking 120,000 as the ratio of representation. How is it now? I take it to be universally admitted that the war has proved far more fatal to the colored opulation of the southern States than to the whites. The testimony of all who are familiar with the statistics of mortality during the war is to the effect that at least one 5th of the negroes of the southern States have perished during the rebellion. Many of those most familiar with the subject estimate the ratio at a still higher figure. GenlGrant, I believe, thinks that one 4th.of all the negroes who were in the South at the opening of the war have er ished. Governor Aiken, of SCarolina, testifies, from his personal knowled e, that of his own slaves, who were probab y as well treated and as much protected as any portion of the southern people, more than one 4th have perished during the struggle from which the nation has just emerged; and JeffersonDavis, I see from the public prints, concedes that one million of the slaves, one 4th of the whole, have probably disappeared. I think it, therefore, a reasonable estimate to assume that one 5th of the 4 million slaves who were in the South when the war broke out are there no longer. This would leave 3,200,000 as the present aggregate of the freed slaves of the southern States, and they are to be represented man for man if this amendment to the Constitution be not adopted. That will give them, at the same ratio of representation, as any gentleman will ascertain by, making the calculation, 26 members, where they before had 20. The number of their Representatives, therefore, from this single source of power, is to be increased by the addition of precisely 6. They will have 6 more members on this floor than they would have had if all their slaves had lived, and the 3/5th s ratio of representation had been preserved. I do not think, sir, that this is very formida ble. I do not think we need apprehend that, by the addition of those 6 members, the southern States will sin by votes what they have lost by arms. We must consider, too, that they have lost, by deaths among their white population, almost as largely far more largely in proportion than the North. Their wealth has disappeared. They are utterly without resources. There is not a dollar in their treasuries. They have not a gun nor a bay onet nor a round of ammunition from one extremity of their land to the other. They have none of the elements of aggression. They have no power to make themselves formidable. They have lost all political influence and standing. Their leaders, who gave direction and power to their political councils, have disappeared before the breath of the terrible whirlwind which they themselves evoked. Their young men, who, trained in the school of secession, were read and ripe for the contest, lie beneath the soil which they deluged with blood. Sla very, the great bond which kept them together, has disappeared before the same dreadful tem pest. They have no longer that great bond and pledge of united action. Theirindustryis utterly disorganized; their lands lie waste and untilled; their railroads are torn up; the waters of their rivers overflow their lands and destroy the crops which alone can give them even the means of livin. There is no longer reason orjustice in speaing of the South as a section; as having separate interests or separate aspirations or the power to act as a unit for any special end. That which gave it power to act compactly has disappeared. It as lost, too, the power of allying itself with any party in the northern States, for in losing its unity it has lost everything that made such an alliance desirable or possible. And even if it should attempt such a union for purposes hostile to the general good, no party in the North would dare for a moment to give it countenance or support; for the moment that any party of the ortb should unite with those of the South who should aim at such a thing, that party would go down before the wrath of the northern people, as every party has done hitherto that lent its aid to designs hostile to the liberties of the Republic. Now, sir, while they in that section are thus losing power constantly, having no resources from which to supply it, we of the North, on the contrary, are constantly augmenting our power by the rowth of population; by immiation from the countries of the Old World; y augmenting wealth; b increasing activity and enterprise; by advancing culture; by every thing that gives dignity and force and power to great communities of men. State after State comes into this Union, every one free and associated in sentiment, sympath, and interest with the northern section of this great nation. Shall we, then, today fear the South? We have never feared it before. We did not fear it in the days of its power. We met it when the danger was imminent and apparent. We beat it here on this floor when it was ten times as powerful as it can be again within the next 50 years. And when, full of rage and unholy ambition, it fled discomfited from this Hall and rushed to the field of battle, we beat it there. Yctgentlemen stand here to (lay saying that unless we have “guaranteesH the existence of the nation will again be imperiled and the traitors and rebels of the South will “gain by votes what they failed to secure by arms!" Sir, I cannot help feeling that this appeal to the fears of the nation savors somewhat of pusillanimity. I would far rather, sir, look in other quarters for the motivesthat are to guide my action. I sympathize rather with John Quincy Adams when years ago he replied to appeals of a kindred nature, “The Government of the U.S. never takes coun sel of its fears; it consults only its courage and its hopes." Wh may we not today take the same high groun, do what we deem to be wise and just and for the good of the nation, without being deterred by the paltry appeals I will not call them paltry, for their motive may be good by the unjust, the unfounded appeals which are made to our apprehensions lest we should lose that authority and control which we have never failed to hold when it was a question of votes, and which we have gathered again to ourselves and fastened here forever by the final appeal of differing nations, the field of battle? The South gain what it has lost by arms! What did it seek by its appeal to arms? Its independence. It sought to overthrow the supremacy of the Government. Is it seeking that now? Is there any reason to suppose that the southern people dream of seeking it again? And is there the faintest shadow of discernible danger that, if they should seek it, they could ever under any circumstances accomplish it? Does any man here or elsewhere believe they can ever again make an appeal to arms, that they can ever again attempt to overthrow this Government under circumstances one hull ns favorable as those which surrounded the trml which hns‘just been closed? They grow in strength, you say; they increase in wealth and population. Ay, sir, and for every step they take in that direction we stride leagues ahead of them. Moreover, air, this fear, this appeal to apprehension. rests wholly on the assumption that if lheir Represenlatives do come again into these Halls they will come as rebels. We are constantly told that "the rebels” are seeking admission to Congress and there is very great danger of their getting admission here, and then by alliance with other parties, seizing the power and wielding it against the public good; and the only way to prevent this catastrophe is to pass this bill for their exclusion. But, sir, the remedy is as futile as the up rehension is unfounded. Fvery one knows that Congress can exclude them without this hill just as well as with it. This bill, ifitbecomcsa law. can have no validity, no binding force. The Constitution gives to this House the right absolute, unqualilied to admit all members whom it mayjudge to be duly elected, returned, and qualified. Pass this bill today, you may tomorrow. in spite ofit. admit Representatives from every southern State if you see fit. The next Congress may repeal it as soon as it gets here. It is bruhun. fulmen. No man on this floor will contend that it will interfere with or obstruct the action of congress one hour beyond the wish and will of congress upon this subject of admitting members to seats upon this floor. Then what good can it possibly accomplish? Another thing, sir. I know of none, except possibly the gentlemen who sit on the other political side of this House, who desire or would be willing to admit to seats here men who have been engaged in the rebellion. I do not know that our political opponents would desire this, though there is perhaps some reason for supposing that they hold the opinion that men should not be questioned as to their past conduct, but that they should be admitted to seats if they are loyal now. But whether this be so or not, I know no one else; I know no one who professes to belong to the Union party; I know no member of the political majority upon this floor who is in favor of admit ting to a share of legislation here any man from any State who cannot take the test oath we have proscribed. That certainly is our position. And just as certainly is it the position of the POTUS. It is common to attribute to him opinions on this pacint which seem to me wholly unwarranted. oth on this floor and through the public press it is asserted that his policy is to admit members from the southern States whether they can take the test oath we have prescribed or not. The President has neither said nor done anythinfir to give a shadow or warrant for such assumptions. In all the language he has used he has always held that it was the absolute rightof each House of Congress to judge of the qualifications of its members, to adopt such tests of loyalty as it chooses, and to exclude from its deliberations every man who cannot stand that test as‘disqualified.