Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Speaker, I am disposed to appropriate the time allotted to me on the present occasion to the investigation of the following question, namely: Is Congress justified in excluding under existing circumstances the representatives from the ten States lately in rebellion against the General Government from a participation in the councils of the nation? The President in his late message, and those who indorse his policy take the negative of this question, and urge a variety of reasons why those representatives should be immediately admitted. The President assumes that all the provisions of the Constitution of the U.S. applicable to States whose inhabitants are in a state of perfect loyalty to the Government of the U.S. should be applied to those States that have just come Out ofour years' rebellion against that government without exception. He also assumes that they are in a perfectly organized condition, and fully prepared to exercise all the functions of States and appreciate all the privileges of citizenship equally with the most loyal inhab itants of the nation. This he does, too, in the face of his own official acts at the close of the organized rebellion, when he ignored all their State constitutions, laws, and officers, and proceeded to make rules and appoint officers for their government in jo accordance with his own of propriety, without reference to their WHI. At this point in my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I wish to express mythorough conviction that all the difficulty between the President and Congress, and the delay in admitting those States to the enjoyment of representation in the national councils, has grown out of the fact that the President ignored and trampled under foot the great principles of democracy in his attempts to reconstruct and reorganize those State governments. Why did he not call Congress together and lay the case of those States before them, and invite their cooperation in a matter so vital to the safety and well being of the whole nation? If ever there has been a time when an extra session of Congress was demanded since the formation of this Government it was immediately following the surrender of the rebel armies. Then was needed the exercise of the wisdom of the nation; at any rate, the people were eWnhtiytled to a voice in the mighty transactions. did the President manifest such “inde cent” haste in laying down conditions and establishing rules for these States in resuming their places in the Government? It, sir, was a want of confidence in the representatives of the people, or rather a want of confidence in the people themselves, for it is always to be presumed that representatives understand and respect the will of their constituents. That old fashioned democracy that I learned in early life taught, 1st, that the people have the right to govern themselves; 2nd, that the representative is presumed to understand and respect the will of his constituents; 3rd, he that rejects or distrusts the representative distrusts those he represents. These are fixed principles, and in those days no true Democrat violated or controverted them. Until it is proven that the representative has betrayed the trust imposed in him his acts are entitled to full faith and credit. Had President Johnson recognized the validity of those principles and acted upon them at the proper time he and Congress, and also he and the people of the nation, would now be cooperating harmoniously in restoring and rebuilding the members of the sisterhood desolated by the tramp of hostile armies. But he distrusted the people and hastened to put into execution his own policy and plans before the representatives of the people would have an opportunity to call in question the wisdom or patriotism of his measures. In my judgment here lies the great wrong that is now plaguing the nation; and here with the President rests the responsibility. Those who sustain the President and his policy generally urge either in justification or extenuation of the conduct of those who rebelled against the Government one or more of the following considerations: 1. An intangible, indescribable, and I presume imaginary something that has no real existence anywhere, which they denominate State. " and which they seem to suppose existed long prior, if not to the creation of the world, at least to that of the formation of the General Government, and it is Mother independent of its Constitution and aWs. 2. They tell us of certain “reserved rights” which the States never surrendered to the national Government. These they seem to think at least partially support the doctrine of secession and justify acts of rebellion against the U.S. Government. 3. Another circumstance which they all plead most eloquently in extenuation of the crime of rebellion is the great insults and indignities offered the slaveholding States by abolitionists and fanatics of the North. While rebels and some of the modern democracy claim that that mysterious something which few can understand and nobody describe authorizes States to secede at will, the majority of the party shrink from an open avowal of the doctrine; yet they talk a great deal about “reserved rights, ” the “bad faith and bad conduct of the people of the North.” In reply to that part of the democracy who deny the right of secession and still plead the “reserved rights of the States” in behalf of the rebels, I inquire what of “reserved right?” Did the States reserve to themselves at the formation of the Constitution the right to secede at their own will and pleasure? If they did, let them point to the article and section in the Constitution, and the controversy is closed; if not, why talk about such rights? What does it amount to? It proves nothing, only that those who do so are very poor reasoners. To those who declaim so eloquently upon the “bad faith, and bad conduct of the people of the North” toward their southern brethren, I reply, suppose that it all is crue that you say of the people of the North, is secession andrebellion the remedy prescribed by the principles of democracy? It may be that prescribed by modern democracy, but not that of the old fashioned kind. That kind taught “that if the people erred they would in their sober 2nd thoughts correct their errors;” “that the people are capable of self government, ” and consequently will correct their errors. If this is not true, democracy is a delusion, and the people are incapable of self government. Hence I argue that this whole theory of “State sovereignty, ” “reserved rights, ” “secession and rebellion, ” as a remedy for real or imaginary evils under a RFG is antidemocratic and wholly unjustifiable; and all those who resort to them or advocate them as such are unworthy of the right of franchise in a free Government. But again, rebels universally claim that the Kentucky resolutions of 1798–99 teach the doctrine that States have the right to secede, and many Democratic conventions have lately indorsed those resolutions in their platforms. Let me state this case more clearly, as I regard it an important item in this controversy. 1st, all secessionists claim that those resolutions declare the right of States to secede from the General Government; 2nd, the Democracy indorse them in their platforms; and many leading Democrats declare that it was the generally received doctrine of our principal statesmen up to a very late period that States had reserved to themselves the right to secede from the Union. This they do by way of palliation for the crime of rebellion. While they have not the boldness to advocate the doctrine themselves, they will say it was the doctrine of the country. In reference to those Kentucky resolutions, I would remind gentlemen on the other side of the House that 11 States out of the 13 then in the Union condemned and rejected them. This circumstance proves conclusively and beyond doubt that the right of secession was not the doctrine of our country at any period. A verdict so decisive as that of 11 to 2 ought to have forever buried the wicked heresy beyond the possibility of resurrection. In reading the 10th section in the 1st article of the Constitution of the U.S. I am surprised that any man should ever talk about “State sovereignty, ” when the States have there surrendered to the General Government everything that has the semblance of sovereignty. We all know that “all powers not delegated to the U.S. by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The question again arises, what rights or powers did they reserve? Did they reserve the right to withdraw or secede from the Unon? They delegated to the General Government, not only the enumerated powers in the Constitution, but the authority to make all laws necessary for carrying into execution the enumerated powers. Here opens a wide field of discretionary power to the o Government; all that is necessary to perpetuate its existence and defend itself against foreign invasion and domestic insurrection. The idea of prescribing the means to be used by the Government in suppressingrebellion or insurrection seems never to have entered the minds of ourancestors in organizing the Government; they expected it to use means adapted to the end. In giving all power “necessary” to carry the enumerated powers of the Government into effect, they expected anything and everything that the exigency might require to be resorted t;o and further, that Congress was to judge in the case. The idea of the Government taking care of rebel property, returning runaway slaves, &c., is most ridiculous. Some have argued, and do now argue, that the Government could only proceed in a constitutional way to suppress rebellion and restore order. Now, sir, F. that there is no constitutional way of fighting rebels; or rather, I will say that all means are constitutional. "Whoever heard of a constiontional and lawful way of defending a house and family against robbers? Or rather, who ever heard of an unconstitutional way of doing it. All or any measure is lawful in such a case. He whose premises are attacked by thieves and murderers may use cold water or hot water, fire and brinstone, or anything else that is available: how ridiculous the idea of prescribing the means he should use! So in reference to the Government in putting down rebellion, any means and all means are constitutional. i. short, there is no Constitution on the subject. The General Government was bound by no Constitution or law in the matter except the laws of war, but was at perfect liberty to do whatever was necessary. The rebels having renounced all constitutions and laws the General Government were at perfect liberty to meet them on their own ground without law. Here I take it on myself to say that after the rebels had renounced the Constitution and laws and made war upon the U.S. there were no laws between the parties. The rebels having forfeited both privileges and protection under this Government they are without either still except so far as they have been conceded to them by the lawmaking power of the Government since their surrender. A State of this nation could not exist out side of the Union, as it could form no alliance with other Powers, make no treaties, coin no money; in short, do nothing that pertains to sovereignty. Having examined the question of constitutional secession and finding that no such right, either expressed or implied, exists, let us investigate the 2nd question: had their rights been so far infringed as to justify or even palliate rebellion? Rebels and their apologists, in the 2nd place, attempt to justify or excuse rebellion on the ground that their rights have been so terribly invaded that they were almost compelled to secede. When we inquire what right of those States that rebelled had ever been disregarded by the General Government, the answer is stam mered out about as follows: “Well, I do not know that the General Government had ever invaded any of their rights; but the abolition ists and fanatics had said a great many hard things about slavery. Mr. Seward said there “existed an irrepressible conflict between slavery and freedom, ’ and Mr. Lincoln said the ‘Union could not continue half free and half slave, ’ and Mr. Sumner called the whole thing a barbarous institution.” This, Mr. Speaker, constitutes the grounds upon which the Democratic party attempt to excuse and palliate rebellion, that of the bad treatment they had received. And rebels and secessionists justify it on the principle of State sovereignty, in the face of the declaration that the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the U.S. are the “su preme law of the land, ” &c. As far as constitutional right for rebellion is concerned, the rebels themselves knew they had none; therefore they renounced Constitution, Government, and all, and fell back upon that indescribable right or power that is over and above the Constitution, State sovereignty or State rights; which I understand to be nothing more nor less than the right to inaugurate State and national anarchy. As to their justification upon the grounds of the bad treatment they had received, Alexander H. Stephens; by far the ablest man in rebeldom, in his speech in the Georgia convention, demolishes, and I may say annihilates, the very idea of such a thing. He shows conclusivel that their rights have always been respected, that they have always had far more than their proportional share in both the power and pa. tronage of the Government; at the very moment of rebellion they were enjoying more th; a due share of both. Not only so in reference to the power and patronage of the Government, but that t or pet institution, slavery, was never more than at that time. That with a majority on the Supreme Bench, and also a majority in both Houses of Congress, the “abolition President” was powerless to harm them, even if he had ever so great a disposition to do so. President Lincoln also gave the most positive assurances that in the administration of the general Government he would most sacredly guard and protect their constitutional rights; that he had no disposition to act otherwise. And yet, sir, without even the shadow of an excuse for their conduct the people of those States rebelled against the best Government the world ever saw; plunged this nation into all the hor rors of civilWar, deluging the country in fra ternal blood, filling the land with widows and orphans, mourning, poverty, desolation, and d.eath; and also piling a debt upon the nation the present generation will not live to see palGl. But having exhausted their resources, and being crushed by the power of the Government they had failed to destroy, they threw down their arms in despair and surrendered. We would now suppose there would have been no more trouble with them; having staked all and lost all they would now accept what is iven them in a submissive and quiet manner. but no sir, they immediately turn upon their conquerers and demand equal rights and privileges and equal power in the Government with those who gave their property and shed their blood to maintain it. And not only so, but in regard to one class of loyalists they claim the right to disfranchise them altogether. Now, sir, the boldness and presumption of such demands are perfectly astounding ! Of what crimes may men not be guilty and yet be entitled to all the rights of citizenship if such claims be recognized 2Idemand to know what they have done, or even said to atone for such crimes as they have committed, that they should make such demands on the Government? Mr. Speaker, I feel perfectly satisfied that Congress has not only constitutional authority to institute for these Territories such governments as in its opinion will conduce to the general welfare of the U.S., but all the circumstances of the case demand it, the condition of the loyal whites, the condition of the loyal blacks, and even that of the rebels themselves demands it. The general welfare of this nation demands it. The Gentfrom Kentucky [Mr. His E] in his speech on this floor denied the right of Congress to govern Territories at all. It might survey the lands and provide for their disposal, but had no authority to make any rules to reg ulate the conduct of settlers upon them “all laws made for such purpose are unwarranted assumptions.” When reminded by the Gentfrom Pennsylvania E. KELLEY] of the ordinance of 1787, excluding slavery from the Territory, the old gentleman was cornered, and I believe would have wilted if the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. FINck] had not come to the rescue by stating that this ordinance was passed before the formation of the Constitution. This suggestion placed my Kentucky friend again upon his legs. The question arose in my mind whether the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. FINck] knew that that ordinance was re affirmed by the 1st congress that sat under the national Constitution, or whether he was willing to make a false imression for the sake of relieving his friend. the fact that the 1st Congress had reaffirmed that ordinance and thereby made it its own had been presented to him I presume the Kentucky gentleman would have felt the land slide from under him a 2nd time; but in that case “ignorance was bliss.” Now, Mr. Speaker, the idea that the gentlemen who composed the 1st Congress under the Constitution did not understand that instrument, as many of them sat in it, ” the Convention that formed that they would willfully violate it, is too ridiculous to be entertained. And this is the position, in troy which the gentleman, from Kentucky; [Mr. HIsE] places himself, either that &“members of that Congress did not understand the Constitution that some of them helped to make and all had sworn to support, or that they willfully violated their oaths. such are the straights to which modern Democrats are driven in support of false theories. But to return to the people in those rebel States, or rather to the rebels themselves. Their conduct since their surrender has surprised me far more than their acts of rebellion. For that I was prepared to look. But, sir, that they should so soon be crawling around the capital of the nation they had labored so earn estly to destroy, pleading for pardons, amnesty, &c., is more than I was prepared to expect. Where now is their “high toned chivalry?” Where that noble “Norman blood that coursed their aristocratic veins, rendering them the superior race?” Where now those noble “lords of the soil, ” upon whom the necessity to govern this nation was forced, they being the only statesmen competent to rule? Whining for representation in the Congress of the nation they so recently invoked the aid of foreigners to destroy; begging for seats in those Halls that they so indignantly and unceremoniously left a short time since. “How are the mighty fallen?” I confess, sir, that my estimate of southern chivalry and spirit has suffered a sad decline. Old Henry A. Wise is the only man among them that has sustained his manhood and that challenges my respect. According to my information he lent his aid to destroy the Government, and being foiled in his attempt, heroically refuses to ask any favors at its hand, quietly accepting its offers without murmur or complaint. A mind of that mold, however much I may think it has erred, commands my respect. Had the rebels succeeded in replacing the stars and stripes with the confederate flag and establishing its power over this nation, I should never i. cast a vote under its folds nor asked representation in its councils, but, with old Henry Wise, accepted in silence what it gave, or remove my fortunes beyond the limits of its power. The mad haste in which those rebels lifted up the heel against this Government and their instant wailing for the ballot when the sword was wrenched from their graspprove them unworthy of the franchise and incompetent for self government. Mr. Speaker I am well persuaded that the prosperity and happiness of the inhabitants of those territories, the quiet and security of the country require the organization by Congress of territorial governments for each of those former States, under which the loyal inhabitants shall be fully protected and placed in the exercise of political power, while the rebellious are held ir subjugation until subordination and good government be fully established. I do not consider that any man has either a political or moral right to the elective franchise under this Government who is not truly loyal to it. I do not regard any man as loyal who is disposed to lionize rebel chiefs or drink to the “fallen flag.” “Just so long as they justify or attempt to justify their rebellion against the Government of the U.S. they are unfit for representation in its Congress, and ought to be excluded therefrom.” How can a man act with reference to the peace and prosperity of a Government that he believes to be unjust and ought to be destroyed? How could an honest man swear to support a Constitution and laws that he believed ought to be abolished? I have intimated, Mr. Speaker, in what I have said that I would favor the extension of suffrage to colored persons in the rebel States. Permit me to state my position fairly upon this delicate question. Being a native of Kentucky and educated among slaveholders it is hardly to be expected that I would be altogether free from their prejudices. In my early childhood I saw that the black people around me were slaves, and I supposed that to be right. I saw that the whites were free, and I supposed that to be right; but I saw also that there were many that were half white and half black. This class perplexed me much; but I ultimately came to the conclusion that they ought to be free half the time; and lest they should die before mid life and not enjoy the sweets of liberty at all, I concluded they ought to be free the 1st half, and thereby secure to freedom its share. On reaching more mature years, however, I became satisfied that liberty was the God given right of all men; that in point of natural rights all men are created equal. Since the rejection of the Wilmot proviso, which proviso I then believed to be right, and still believe was so, I have uniformly cast my votes against the extension and spread of slavery. When General Cass “swung around the circle” and the Democratic party with him and landed on the pro slavery side, I quit the Democracy, and cast my vote for Mr. Van Buren, the antislavery candidate for President in 1848, and today I am proud of the stand I then took. But, Mr. Speaker, I have always believed that it would be better for both races that the whites and blacks should be separated, and that each should live in a country to themselves. I most heartily accord to the black man all the rights that I claim for myself, but I would greatly prefer that he should enjoy his in one country and I mine in another. I believe the white man is here by the providence of God. I believe that Columbus was guided and sustained by the Divine hand. The white man is here in accordance with his own voluntary agency. Therefore I conclude that this is his home according to the will of God. Not so with the black man, he was dragged here by force and violence in opposition to his will. Hence, I conclude he is here by the providence of the devil and agency of wicked men, in opposition to natural law and the will of God. I do not wish him forced away, that would be almost as bad as forcing him here; but I do expect Providence, in unrolling the scroll of the future to him, to make such developments as will cause him to choose to emigrate. But, sir, while he is here, God being my helper, I will do him justice. When President Lincoln proposed procuring territory in Central or South America as a home for colored people, and dispatched Senator Pomerox as the agent of our Government to procure it, I indorsed the idea, believing that its fulfillment would promote the welfare of both races; and about that time canvassing my State as a can didate for Congress, I took ground against giving the right of suffrage to colored men among us, and having taken in the canvass the ground I did I felt bound 12 months ago to vote against the suffrage bill for this District. But Mr. Lincoln's plan of securing country in South America for a home for the people of color having vanished, and no prospect for their emigration in any other direction present.ing itself, I feel that justice demands that he shall have the ballot. This is the only defense, of which I am informed, for the black or any other class of men against injustice and oppression. While I regret taking any step that can be construed by him into an invitation to make a permanent location among us, I still feel that as he is here without his own will or agency we are morally bound to extend to him the protection of the ballot. But, sir, while I am disposed to extend impartial suffrage to all male citizens independent of.; do not consider that consistency. me to extend it to females of any color. Did I believe the happiness of females or the general welfare of society required it, I should be among the 1st to advocate its extension to them. I am unwilling, however, to admit that the interests of the sexes is so distinct as to demand a representation from both. In legislating for my own happiness I necessarily secure that of my wife and daughters. The happiness of the husband is composed in so large a part in seeing his wife and daughters happy, that in promoting their happiness he necessarily promotes his own. In.their interests are so intimately and inseparably joined, that I perceive not the necessity for authorizing both to do that which one can perform, I think, equally as well. In respect to the interests of widows and single ladies, it's not desirable or expected that they shall remain in that condition long, at any rate not longer, than till they meet with a favorable opportunity to change their state. The strongest argument that I have read in support of female suffrage is that which claims that all persons brought before courts, for criminal offenses “should be tried by a jury of their peers, ” and that females have never enjoyed this right. However, plausible this may appear, it is altogether fallacious, as it is a '. '. fact that males are far more lenient to females, under such circumstances, than females are to each other. Man as I am, if I had to be brought before court I would not object to being tried by a jury of females; but were I a lady I should enter my solemn protest against being tried before a female court and jury. Taking all things into consideration, I have no idea that the happiness of females or the general welfare of society would be promoted by placing the elective franchise in their hands, or even in making them equally eligible to position and power. I think, however, that I am unprejudiced on this subject, and ready to receive further light. In designating who in the States lately in rebellion against the General Government should vote, I would admit the white man who has always been loyal, because he has never forfeited his rights. I. }. admit the loyal negro, because he is loyal and would study the welfare of the Government; I would reject the disloyal white man, because I think him an unsafe deositary of power; and I would reject the disoyal negro for the same reasons. I would admit the loyal man, white or black, to the rights of franchise because he is loyal, and consequently a safe depositary of political power, and I would reject the disloyal, white or black, because he is disloyal, and therefore an unsafe depositary of power. I do not, however, give the negro as much credit for what fighting he did during the late rebellion as many do. I have not thought that he fought so much to save the Government as to secure his own freedom. I have no doubt he would have fought just as bravely on the other side if he had thought that was the side to which he could look for freedom, and he would have been justified in so doing. But had he fought on the side of the rebels under then existing circumstances he would have showed himself unworthy of freedom; but as he knew which side to fight on, he has shown himself capable of judging which is the right side to vote on. Before closing my remarks, I wish to pay my respects to a statement that has been often repeated by members of the socalled Democratic party, both in and out of this Hall; that is, the great prosperity of this country while under the administration of their party, and the war and devastation under Republican administration. Let me use a figure to illustrate the character of this boasting: a certain vessel was navigated by her crew for many leagues safely and speedily upon a calm sea, but all the time in the exact direction of a maelstrom until the vessel was caught and carried rapidly around in its circling waters. At this juncture the captain folded his hands and sat down, exclaiming at the same time, “No earthly power can save the ship; she is bound to go down in the vortex f’ is under officials all forsake their posts and begin to rob and pillage the vessel. The owners of the ship have from the shore discovered the state of affairs and sent out a new crew, who step on board. The new commander grasps the helm, puts the ship about, spreads all sail, and heads for the open sea. But she struggles and quivers in every beam under the war of elements; the contest is doubt ful for a time; but ultimately the crisis is past, and the ship is sailing slowly into port. At this juncture the old crew gather around and chide the new officers for their slow progress and laborious navigation, telling them how splendidly they had sailed and how prosperous the voyage while under their control. But, to cap the climax of their folly, the old crew, ask to be again employed and put in command of the ship ! I admit, Mr. Speaker, that the Democratic party notified us that if we elected Abraham Lincoln for President they would dissolve the Union; and they now tell us that if the Republican party had let them continue to rule they would not have rebelled; and as that party could very easily have stayed at home and not voted for Mr. Lincoln, or have gone to the polls and voted for Breckinridge, and would not do so, therefore they are chargeable with all the blood and carnage, death and destruction of the war. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, their Democracy amounts to about this: if the people of this nation will just simply let them rule, whether they are in the majority or minority, they will then be loyal and peaceable; but if the people vote them out of power they will then haul down the national flag, seize the public property, deluge the land in fire and blood, and then charge it all on the Republicans. such persons would more appropriately style themselves demoncrats. But, sir, in this country we intend that the majority shall rule. And rather than surren der our right to elect the man of our choice to the Presidency we will see this continent swept as clean as the top of the Tyrean rock. FINANCE, BANKS, AND CURRENCY.