Mr. TRUMBULL. We have, in the course pursued by the Senfrom Indiana, another illustration of the truth that practice and precept do not always go toget er, One would have supposed that a Senator so anxious to bring this session to a close, suffering so much from the heats of summer, and the apprehensions of protracting the session into August, would not introduce an extraneous matter upon this bill to take up the time of Congress and prolong its session. But, sir, not satisfied with having introduced the subject, and having made one speech upon it, to which I under took to reply briefly, he repeats the speech over 2 or 3 times, and he says that nothing can be gained by stating the question untruly; thatit might do upon the hustings, but it. will not do here. Well. sir, I propose to go along with the Senator and see what he has stated and what he is for. He says he is not for admitting persons here who will not take that oath as long as the law remains; and when I ress him to know if he is in favor of the law, e says, “ You will find out by my course." He speaks of the law as unconstitutional. Let us see, then, the position in which the Senfrom Indiana has placed himself. He is in favor of enforcing that law, and he believes it unconstitutional! He is in favor here inthis high assembly of the nation of enforein a rule that he believes to be unconstitutiona ! He is sworn’to support the Constitution; he believes the rule violates it, is unconstitutional;‘ and under the solemn oath he has taken, and the appeal to his God that he will stand by the Constitution, he says he will enforce the law! He did not say it was unconstitutional, but.he intimated as much. He used the word “unconstitutionalf’ but I suppose it was rather by way of circumlocution. I do not wish to inisstate the Senator. I have no doubt he thinks so; but with that caution for which he is peculiar he made the statement in such a way as not to atiirm tively that posi it was unconstitutional, thong 1 he said enough to leave the inference upon the mind of every one who' heard him that he believed it. to be unconstitutional. Now, I should like to know from him if that is not his opinion. I presume I should get the answer I received before, “You will ascertain by my course.” He would admit these Senators from the South, and the day they took their seats he would vote to repeal the law that required the oath. Then who would come in here? The moment you get enough members into this body under the oath to repeal the law that required the oath. wou.ld you not repeal it? Dare the Senfrom Indiana rise in his place and say to this Senate and to his constituents and to the country that he wouldhot vote to repeal the law any a that his vote would carry such a measure? [let him not, then, dodge behind this bulwark of a law or a rule of the Senate to which he is opposed, and which he believes to be unconstitutional, and seek to thrust in here men enough to repeaI it in order that trai tors may come unobstructed afterward. But, sir, who is it that is raising this clamor about being kept out of Congress? Is it the loyal men of the South? Who is it that raises this howl about not being represented here? Your Stephenses and your Johnsons and your Sharkeys, Orr, of SCarolina, and your men connected with this rebellion; the men who went from the Federal Congress into the rebel congress, and from the rebel congress became Governors of States, and now the boon companions of the Senfrom Indiana with whom he has gone to bed, expecting to wake upon the 14th of August at Philadelphia. They are the men that raise the bowl. governor Orr has made his bed with the Senfrom Indiana, and will meebhim on the morn in7of the 14th of August at the city of Phila dephia to reconstruct the Union! They are the men that raise this objection; it is not the true, loyal men of the South. You do not hear it from Fowler, of Tennessee, from Stokes, of Tennessee, from Maynard, of Tennessee, from Hamilton, of Texas; you do not hear it from the true Union men of the South who stood out, as the Senfrom Indiana so eloquently said, in defense of the Union in the midst of treason. They are not the men who are raising this how]. They want the South controlled by loyal men. They want the States lately in rebellion to be under the control of men true to the Union. Does the Senfrom Indiana? If he does, why did he oppose the proposition in this body that men connected with the rebellion should not hold olfiee in the South a few of them only, the leaders? We brought in a proposition here that certain olfieers who had sworn to support the Constitution of the U.S., an had disregarded that oath and taken fl) arms against the U.S., should not be permitted to hold office in the southern States, and we find the Senfrom Indiana opposing it. Are you in favor, then of those men holding office in the South? I presume you are, just as you are in favor of their coming here, and you have taken shelter today behind a law which you would repeal the moment you have the power. I am for keeping this body and keeping this nation and keeping all the States of this Union loyal and true to the Constitution of the Union. But, says thoSenator, some of these persons can take the oath and you do not admit them; why do you not admit them? Because we have no evidence that they come from loyal constit uencies. The Senator says he is ready to admit anybody that will take the oath. Would be admit a man as a Senator here who came from a State in flagrant war against the Government? The declaration he has made here to dny would compel him to do so. The only question he asks is, is the representative prepared to take this oath? Then what would have prevented SCarolina, in the midst of the war, from electing any iuan as her Senator and his being admitted here to a seat?