Mr. CONKLING. Yes; approved by President Lincoln, and approved, as James Madison said of another statute, by the universal acquiescence of the American people. The President has said the “test oath, and men who have denounced Congress, if they pretended to be loyal, have said the “ test oath " was the magic barrier, the elixir of life, the all sufficient lion in the path of disloyalty; and that while we maintained the test oath the Republic could take no harm from admitting representatives from States lately in rebellion. Some of us believed this and some did not. Some feared that the test oath, if we trusted to it alone, would lead to the paradox of a constituenc having the nominal right of representation while being itself disloyal, and compelled to exercise that right by choosing a loyal man who would not truly reflect the sentiments of his constituents, or else that disloyal constituencies would choose those who did reflect their sentiments at heart, but who were dishonest enough to take the oath notwithstandin. Some feare that the oath would be no shiel against men, disloyal in fact, who, upon some question of "‘ casuistry” I borrow the phrase would mana e to take it, and who, uving thereby leate themselves in the House or in the senate, could never be ousted except by the vote of an impossible 2/3rds. But the test oath was the outpost; it was a point beyond debatable propositions; and no man was found to deny that the oath should be reserved as the barrier between us and disloyalty; no man, except those who were willing to relinquish the entire position in which loyalty consists. But now, sir, in spite of all this, what do we find? In the very rst instance in which this safeguard was needed, the 1st in which it was to be relied upon, it is proposed that we shall throw it away and destroy it utterly, not for Mr. Patterson alone but for all those who would come here. f the oath cannot stand against Mr. Patterson it cannot stand against one of those who, reckoning all the 15 former slave States, are to cast 94 or 96 votes in this House, if Representatives are to be admitted without waiting for the ratification of the amendment of the Constitution changing the rule of apportionment and representation. The southern members will then number almost 1/2 of this entire body, and they will find enough here in sympathy with them, if they are to be men who cannot by an oath purge themselves of treason, to ring e knell of the day during which the public credit is to be preserved, during which the public faith is to be kept inviolate, during which repudiation is to be spurned and driven from these Halls. Sir, I say it is amazing; I say this whole scene to night is a sad commentary, a picture sorrowful to be seized upon by the people of this country, anda'ustly sorrowful to none so much as to those wh0 have argued and believed that we would have been safe heretofore in admitting even the most re enerated, the most redeemed, the most disint ralled of the rebellious States. I have nothing of personal feeling, by way of unkindness, in regard to the individual whose name and representative position is at stake. But we have heard a statement made in his behalf, which as his advocate I should never make, certainly not as a part of the argument to sustain the case presented to this house. We are told in the 1st place that he took an oath to support the southern confederacy. What does this mean? It means that, holding up his hand in the presence of that God before whom traitors and loyal men must alike appear, he solemnly pledged himself to support that conglomeration of irates, murderers, and thieves, whose hiding placewas Richmond. And an argument has been made upon the question whether this was a hostile act, whether it was within the meaning of the oath we have all taken. We all swear that we'have not done any act “to support any authority hostile to the U.S. The person in question it seems took an oath to support the enemies of the U.S., but it is said he did not feel hostile himself. Are we quibbling upon techni calities, or playin with words li e children with playthings? glore than this; he accepted an official commission, and discharged the duties and exercised the rerogatives of a high officer, under this socalled confederation. And then is addql what as his advocate I should not have added, that when he took the oath he did there was casuistry and mental reservation in the act that he did not mean to be bound by it at the time. I ask the law yers of this house, I ask all the members of this House, whether that creates a distinction favorable to the case. What was that reservation? That the oath to support usurped power was unconstitutional? Ay, sir, so it was, and in that sense was it obligatory upon one man who took it within the socalled confederacy? Certainly not. And yet we have put upon our statute book, and we stand before the people today upon the idea that he who with an oath upon his lips solemnly dedicated himself to the service of that confederacy, took the last and most irretrievable step of rebel allegiance. Does a mental reservation in the taking of an oath change the obligation which that oath imposes? If it be an oath established by usurpation, its origin goes in some form to the question of its force. But is the eflicacy of nn oath measured or affected by the mental reservation of him who takes it? Does it reflect honor upon a man who takes an oath that he does so intending at the time, by a reservation kept within his own bosom, to decide afterward upon circumstances as they arise how far it is o ligatory upotr him? Nay, more than that; what is the attitude of him who takesan oath, actually intending at the time he takes it to reject its obligation and to trample it under foot? such an act if it be justifiable, implies a right of an individual judgment, which, as has been said, maybe exercised in taking the test oath itself. Men have said that oath, too, was unconstitutional; and such men may come here and take it with a reservation, secretly resolved at the time, to trample that, too, under their feet. And the argument in ethics, in morals, and in law, is as strong in the last case as in the 1st. Can such doctrine be tolerated for a moment? Sir, I have nothing in the world personall against the man concerned. But I view with as much feelin as my friendfrom Ohio [Mr. SHELLABARGER the proosition that is.re sented to us. We are asked to drive a plowshare over the very foundation of our poartion, to break down and destroy the bulwark by which we may secure the results of a great war, and a great history, by which we may preserve from defilement this place, where alone in our organism the people never lose their supremacy except by the recreancy of their representatives; a bulwark without which we may not save our Government from disintegration and disgrace. Ifwc do this act, it will be a recedent which will carry fatality in its train. from JeffersonDavis to the meanest tool of despotism and treason, every rebel may come here, and we shall have no reason to assign against his admission except the arbitrary reason of numbers. Every man of them may come and lay his hand upon this JtResolution and say: “There is my title, as valid as that of anyother man to a seat in either House of Congress, if I can only find a constituency to elect me." For one I enter my solemn protest against it. I utter my warum against this 1st attempt to let‘down the stan a of loyalty. Let us not stain our hands with this; it is the Senate’s matter solely. The Senate has passed it: upon the Senate be the responsibility. The Senate has absolute power over the admission or rejection ol Patterson, and there is no reason for our dividing With the Senate the responsibility of its exercise. I hope this House will keep aloof, and I move to lay the JtResolution on the table.