Mr. STEWART. I am not here to discuss terms. You may call it “restoration, ” or you may call it “reconstruction;” you may call it one thing or another. The fact exists that we have had a war. The fact exists that while we had that war the southern States were not acting in harmony with the Union. The fact exists that we want to get them backin harmony. These are plain facts. The fact now exists that we have amended the constitution, and that under it we are empowered to keep order in the South and protect the freedmen while this process of restoration is going on. These are p ain facts, and I say to the Democrats on the other side of the House that they retard reconstruction when they ask that we shall withhold military power from the South and allow anarchy and disorder to prevail there; because, no matter whether they are States in the Union or out of the Union, their representatives cannot be received in Congress unless they come from States where law and order prevail. The war must have been entirely concluded, we must have peace and order there before they can again act in harmony with us. These measures are calculated to give that peace and order, and I flatter myself that the great mass of the southern people, the best of them, are in favor of peace and order", but they are powerless to restore it. It must be restored and held there, until society shall settle, bv the strong arm of the Government. Let us do this; let us save the organizations that are already irovided; and then we can commence discriminating in favor of loyal men at the South who will work for the glory of the whole nation. who will stand by us as good and true men. There are some such there, and however few they may be they ought to be encouraged. We can in that way give them a nucleus about which to rally, and we can make some progress during this session. This seems to me to be the practical way of reconstructing. It matters not. whether these organizations were legally started or not, they exist there. What good will it do “8 wh(981 them down? Have we not control there for all practical purposes to preserve order as fall, a and as completely as we should have if we reduced them to a territorial condition and passed elaborate laws for them? Can we not keep order there now? Is it not our duty to do it? Is it not the duty of the POTUS, through the military, to see that the laws of the U.S. are executed and enforced? Can we not then accomplish all that is necessary for the peace and security of that portion of the country without destroying that which has been done I If we can build up without tearing down let us do it, and then we shall have no difference of opinion, then we can all agree. I think we should allow these organizations to stand; and when a man comes here who has been tried in the fire of war in the South and istruly loyalto the Union, ready to take your test oath, ready to work with us for the restoration of the country; the State from which he comes being protected by the strong arm of the Government; the freedman being protected in all his rights by the laws you pass under a constitution which is ordained for his freedom, will it hurt us, will it lower the dignity of this bod to admit on this floor a trul loyal man from the South? I think that the voice of one or 2 loyal men from the South, ifwc could get them here, would not only aid us but would be an advantage to the southern people; it would be a warning to them as to what they must do; it would be a guide by which they might be conducted; it would be a rallying point around which a Union sentiment might be created in the South. But ifwe treat them all with contempt, if we do not seek to build up the solid foundations of States, but spend this session in tearing down what has been done, we shall adjourn without having accomplished any good result. We must reconstruct at some time. To hold these States permanently in the condition of Territories is out of the question. You cannot do it. That course wou d be contrary to the enius of our institutions. The people of the orth are opposed to it; the people of the South are opposed to it. When you admit that you cannot have a Union, when you admit at you have exhausted all your powers and that there is no hope of a Union o States, the North will rebel against using military power to hold conquered prov inces, and you cannot get armies or that purpose. Sir, we should never ive up the idea that we can have a Union. Vhether we like the southern peole or not, we have got to try the experimento fellowship with them, and that before a great while. I would rather have fel lowship with those who have been loyal than with the mass of the disloyal; but under the system of territorial organizations, I do not see that we can have any kind of fellowship either with the legal or disloyal. In this view of the question, am in favor of continuing in the course we have commenced, passing these bills, going on, as I consider, in this work of practical reconstruction.