Mr. BOYER. Many great questions of public policy depend upon the decision of this Congress, but the greatest of them all is that which involves the restoration of the States to their practical relations with the Federal Union. Unti that great end shall have been accomplished the triumph of the Government over the rebellion will be still incomplete; and the rebellion itself may claim at least a partial victory in so far as it as succeeded in removing the ancient landmarks of the Constitution, and in marring the symmetry of that constitutional Union of States which, asit came from the hands of our fathers, was the masterpiece of human government and the admiration of the world. After the outbreak of civilWar, the 1st essential work of thenation was the forcible suppression of the rebellion. That work, after a our years struggle, the most. sanguinary and costly In the history of revolutions, has been full accomplished. Thanks to the unparalleled galantry and endurance of our soldiers, and the unparalleled patriotism energy, and generosity of the ople, arm rebellion most the laws has been eve where subdue, and from the Atlantic to the reacific coast, and from the Aroostook to the Rio Grande, there is peace. Exhausted by an unequal strife, conquered by Overwhelming numbers, the late rebellious States lie prostrate at the feet of the Federal power, their population decimated and impoverished, their resources crippled and for the time well nigh destroyed, and the cause for which they fought so madly and suffered so much hopelessly and forever lost. How shall the relations of national unity and harmony be restored between the States lately so discordant and belligerent? How shall the cruel wounds inflicted by the sections upon each other be healed? and above all, how shall the rennion, be completed without the sacrifice of any of those principles and guarantees of ClVll liberty which ii we inherited, and without destroymg the proortions of that, political system of State and Federal jurisdiction which constituted the chief excellence of our Republic and has been the chief cause of its wonderful success 3 These are the important questions which devolve upon the present Congress of the U.S. at however vast in its importance an comprehensive in its scope is the work which t as devolved upon Congress, it did not at 1st seem proportionately difficult. When Congress assembled in last December the lately rebellious States were already subdued and submissive, and all eager to renew their allegiance to the Constitution and the laws. Their Sens&Reps were here to take the constitutional oath of othee, and in the name of their respective States to pledge their fcalty to the hederal authority. other ways they had manifested their good faith. The rese inded their ordinances of secession. ey adopted the constitutional amendment abolishing slavery. To up ordinary observer not versed in the intrica cies of party polities it must have appeared as if all the sacrifices of the war were about to be atoned by the blessings of a redeemed and reunited country. The temper of the southern people was most propitious. In anSiver to a resolution of the Senate, on the 18th of December, President Johnson said: “ In that portion of the Union lately in rebellion the aspect of affairs is more promising than. in view of all the circumstances could well have been expected. The people throughout the entire South evince a laudable desire to renew their allegiance to the Government and to repair the devastations of war by a prom tand cheerfulreturn to peaceful pursuits. An abiing faith is entertained that their actionswill conform to their professions and that in acknowledgingthosupromacyof the constitution and the lawsof the U.S. their loyalty will bean reservedly given to the Government, whose leniency they cannot fail to appreciate, and whose fostering care will soon restore them to a condition of pros parity." On the same day, and in response to the same resolution of the Senate, GenlGrant said: “M y obse rvationslead me to the conclusion that the citizens of the southern Statesare anxious to return to self government within the Union assoon as possible: that while reconstructingthey want and require protection from the Government; that they are i n earnest in wishing to do what they think is required by the tiovernniont, nothumiliating to them athse cyitwizoeunl and thatifsucha course were pointed out pursue it in good faith." and he added these other significant words, as if to administer a rebuke to the proscriptive body of men to whom his language was midicased;. " It is tobor egrettedthat thercoannotbe a greater commingliiiir lit this time between the OillZLHSof the 2 sections, and particularly of those intrusted with the lawmaking power." such was the condition of affairs at the commencement of the present Congress. All obsta cles to immediate reunion seemed tohave been happily removed. {it the South no man opposed. But lo, in this hour of the nations hope and expectation, the leaders of the great socalled Union party stood at the doors of the Capitol and barred the way. They demanded of the repent antiind returning rebels new guarantecs as the price of representation in Congress. “ You represent dead States, ” said one; "Ireason is a crime and must be punished, said another; “ Give the ballot to the negroes, ” said all of them; “Disfranchise 9 10ths of your white voters, ” said another; “You are too many, ” said the chief among the lead ers, “you will vote with the Democrats, and they and you together, being a majority of the cple, wdl at the very 1st election turn the the publicans out of othee." Itshall now be my purpose, as briefly as I can, to analyze and expose the nature of the guarantees in the absence of which this congress proposes to perpetuate disunion. I maintaintiat they are no guarantees for the safety of the Republic which are wanted, but guarantees for the safety of the republican party. For this it is that the hopes oft enation have been falsified, and great national responsibilities and interests sacrificed and betrayed. For this it was, and not for the restoration of the Union, that the JtCommee of 15 on reconstruction was invented. Its author and mover has been fitly enough placed at its head. From that moment disappomtment ceased, for had fled. No sane or intelligent. man inhope the country from that hour ever looked to the committee of 15 for anything else than aningen ious scheme to keep out tesouthern States, and to prevent the restoration of the Union until after the next presidential election. I do not mean to attribute to the chairman of the committee of 15 the sole responsibility of the acts or omissions at either the committee itself or of the Congress which created it. On the contrary, I concede that he truly represents the principles and policy of the majority in this Congress, and t. at the leadership is his, not only by parliamentary usage, but by the natu ral right which pertains to exerience, ability, and courage. othin is urther from my intentions than to indu ge in unbecomingpersonalities; but I must be allowed to say that the selection of such a leader is a fact which alfords me a legitimate argument in favor of the position I take. For months before Congress met my colleague from the Lancaster district had been abroad through the land, breathing proscription, and conservation, and forfeiture of State rights, and advocating suffrage for millions of negroes and disfranchisement for millions of white men. All this was well known to every member of this House; for my colleague is no obse ure person, and he is not in the habit of hidin his light under a bushel. When, therefore, find this statesman the “head center” of the Republican majority, his acknowledged leadership is conclusive evidence that his policy is the policy of his party. In the 1st speech made by him in the e in ning of this Congress he candidly stated that the new guarantees demanded of the southern States were intended for party purposes. In advocating the change in the basis of rere sentation as it is now substantially enibo ied inghe proposed constitutional amendment, he sai: “ With thobasisunchanired.tho 83 southernpicmbers with the democratsthat will in the best of times be c ccted from the North. will always we them a majority in Congressandin theElectoral ol leire. Theywill at the very 1st election tako possession of the White House aadthe Balls of Cannes." "AInfd again: they should mnt the right of suffrage topersons of color, I think there would always be Union white men enough in the South.aidedbythe blacks. to divide the representation, and thus continue the Republican ase endancy.” In none of the speeches which have been made upon this nor by other prominent leaders of the majority will be found any dec laration of motive so outspoken as that of the chairman of the ComReconstruction. But in all of them will be found a course of argument in harmony with the policy declared by him, and adverse to the immediate restoration of the Union. The Globe groans beneath the weight of innumerable columns of labored argument to prove that 11 States are States no more, but subjugated prov inces outside of the Union, and subject to the absolute will of the conqueror. To prove this disunion theo the various authors upon international law have been ransacked and Grotius and Vattel have been misap lied and perverted with an amount of zeal an industry which might be entitled to commendation if employed to unite instead of to divide the country. I do not propose to follow theselearned doctors through the labyrinths which lead to the theoretical death and amputation of 11 members of the body politic. For alter all the refinements of logic and the subtleties of foreign lore have been exhausted they fail to answer the simple practical question. If, as admitted by all. secession was a failure and the war a success, how did the rebellious States get out of the Union? If they are States in the Union shall we a peal to Grotius and Vat tel to define their rights, and the status of their people, and the extent of the Federal power over them 2 Or shall we rather go to the fount ain head of our own political system, the constitution of the U.S., and to the writings of those who made it? What, indeed, if the States were dead, or as some with more refinement than others exress it, in a state of suspended animation, what might we then expect lrom a body of patriotic statesmen assembled for the reconstruction of the government? Which would be the purer and the nobler statesmanship, to trample upon the in animate carcasses of the prostrate States with the iron heels of political prescription and sectional hate, or to breathe into their passive forms anew the breath of life, and start them again in the career of honor, prosperity, and equality? In elaboration and earnest zeal the arguments of the majority for the exclusion of States from the Union are only equaled by the efforts of the same reasoners in favor of the disfranchisement of their people after they get in. This is proposed by tie JtComReconstruction as a condition precedent to their admission at all. The purpose of this wholesale disfranchisement of the white people of the South who have been engaged in the rebellion becomes more clearly evident when we considert he coordinate branch of the same scheme for acquiring control of the ballot box by the enfranchisement of the blacks. Upon what acomprehensive basis of pliilanthro y these political artificers profess to build the theor of “ no distinction of race or colorl” Io what a sublime pitch of eloquent declamation they swell this lofty theme of universal brotherhood. But everything has its limit; and so it seems has the humanity of the republican majority of the 39th congress and its legitimate representative, the reconstruction committee. As a set off to these glowing dissertations in favor of the political rights of about 4 million American negroes, we have from the same source arguments equally elaborate and expressions of emotion equally as intense in favor of the right and justice of exeluding from all political privileges about twice that many millions of white Americans. Both those objects are sought to be accomplished by the proposed amendment to the Constitution reported by the committee, and now before the House for discussion. That amendment, together with the bills reported in connection with the same, is submitted to the House and the country as the best considered plan of reconstruction which the committee, after 5 months incubation, have been able to produce for the consolation of a distracted nation. The plan is, at least in my opinion, most admirably adapted to its design, which was nothing more nor less than the solution of the problem of “ how not to do it." In this I think it may be fairly said, in justice to the committee, that they have fully met the public expectation. The terms laid down by the committee as the conditions precedent to the admission of representatives in Congress from the States lately in insurrection are of such a nature as to preclude any reasonable be e of their accept ance. The 3rd section of the proposed constitutional amendmentrwhich I propose 1st to consider, is itself sufficient to convince any reflecting man that the amendment is not intended for adoption, but only to operate by means of its expected non-adeption as an excuse for the exc usion of southern representatives for an indefinite period. It reads as follows: SEC. 3. Until the 4th day of July. in the year 1870, all personswho voluntarily adhered to the late insurrcction. giving it aid and comfort, shall be excluded from the right to vote for representativesin Congress and for (lect rs for President and VEEP The effect of this amendment, if adopted, would be to disfranchise for aperiod ofoverfour years 9 10ths of the voting population of 11 States. Does any sane man believe such terms would be accepted? When in the history of nations did a free people voluntarily consent to such a degradation? ltis a condition which could not be accepted with honor, and it is a condition, therefore, which is not fitto be proposed to any American community by an American Congress. But it is said that we have the rightful power to impose such a condition. If we had, its exercise would still be most unwise. It needs no argument to demonstrate that in statesmanship magnanimity is a nobler quality, and withal a sounder policy, than tyranny; and that it is better for a Government to call forth blessings by its clemency than to provoke the curses of a people by its Oppression. But I deny altogether the right of the Federal Government to disfranchise the majority of the citizens of any State on account of their past participation in the rebellion. They who have committed treason are amenable to the laws, even after they have returned to their allegiance. But on cannot make new laws and a new Constitution to meet their case. Treason is undoubtedly a crime and may be punished, but by no bill of attainder or expostfacto law such as is provided in the amendment before the House. The 9th section of the 1st article of the Constitution declares “No bill of attainder or expostfacto law shall be passed." That single prohibition is in itselfa complete answer to all that has been said in support of the doctrine of the reconstruction committee. If an further answer were needed, it would be foun in the 9th and 10th articles of the same instrument: “An r. 9. The enumeration in the Constitutionpf certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage oters retained by the people. “ART. 10.The powersnot delegatedto the U.S. are reservedto the States respectively, or to the people.", It will not do to say that the civilWar has abrogated the constitutional rights of rebellious citizens, and that vengeance beyond the boundaries of what is written is to be justified to the Federal Government by right of conquest. Not only is such a doctrine opposed by the express prohibitions of the Constitution, but Congress and the whole nation stand pledged before the world against any such interpretation. After the civilWar had commenced and after a great battle had been fought, Congress passed through both Houses, by an almost unanimous vote, the following resolution: "That this war is not prosecuted upon our part in any spirit ofoppression. nor for any purpose ofcon quest or subjugation, nor purpose of overthrowing or interferimzwith the rights or established institutions of those States. but to defendand maintain the supremacyof the Constitution and all laws made in pursuance thereof and to preservethe Union with all the dignity equality and rights of the several States unimpnir; that assoonas theseobjectsareaccomplished the war ought to cease." Everywhere throughout the loyal sections of the country this was the accepte doctrine, and under it and for it the nations treasure was cured out and the nations blood was shed. t was our tower of stren h, and clothed us in the indestructible panop y of right. Shall we now, when the war is 0er, be told that this was only a sham, a blind to delude the people and recruit the armies? The Gentfrom Ohio, [Mr. Snuuanan cum] in his speech delivered upon this subject on the 21st of April, based his argument for the right to disfranchise the population of the late rebellious States upon the doctrine of self preservation as the universal right and duty of nations. He argued this right upon an assumed state of facts with great force and learning; but the proof of the main premises of his prep position e alto ether omitted. He assumed without proof that such disfranchisement is in this case necessary for the reservation of the nation; and that essential ink bein wantin, hisentireelaborateaigumentfallsto egroun. If there does exist any necessity for the disfranchisement of the people of 11 States of this Union it must e because if suffered to vote for representatives and for President they would be numerically strong enough through the legitimate channels of legislation to control the Government of the country. But it is plain that of themse lves they constitute a very perceptible minority of the entire nation. How, then, could they get control of he Government? it is lain that they never c uld acquire the sway in ongress or elect a President except with the help of a sufficient number of loyal voters in other sections of the country to constitute with themselves a majorit of the whole people. In what attitude does this leave the party who upon this ground are striving to exclude southern representatives 7 Why, in the attitude of a eoiise io is minority engaged in a 1 conspiracy to keep the control of the Govern lment against the will of a majority of the people of the whole countr. Will it be preteiide that, counting in the population of all sections, those who seek to destroy the country are more numerous than those who desire to save it? If this be so, the country is already doomed, and there is no salvation for it. f, on the other hand, a majority of the whole people will stand by the country, it is not in the power of any sectional minority to destroy it, and the loyal majority can better and more safely govern the opposing minority, if there be such, inside oi2 the Union than out of it. I know there are men on this floor who seek ever opportunity to insult the common sense of the country by harangues attributing to the Democratic party at the North complicity with the rebellion. If this atrocious slander had in it an truth; if the great Democratic party of the orth, instead of sending its 100s of 1,000s of volunteers into the ranks of the Federal armies, had gone over to the enem or had remained only passive spectators of tese ene, the victorious rebels would long ago have taken possession of the capital and the country. No one party can rightfully boast of having saved the country, and those who are the most bloody minded and proscriptive in the uses of victory, as ageneral rule, have shed the least blood in its achievement. I have considered the 3rd section of the amendment. reported by the committee, 1st, because it is the most objectionable of all the parts. I am opposed, however, to any further c stitutional amendments as conditions to repsentation in Congress of any State in the Union. But my limited time will not allow me to dwell at much length, upon the remain in ections. l Wthe principles 0! the cm rightsbill, and isintended to secur ultimately, and to some extent indirectly, the political equality of the negro race. It is objectionable also in its phraseology, being open to ambiguity and admitting of conflicting constructions. The 2nd section of the amendment is ostensibly intended to remedy it supposed in equality in the basis of representation. The real object is to reduce the number of southern representatives in Congress and in the Electo ra College; and also to Operate as a standin inducement to negro suffrage. It may indoe be said that there is some well founded objection to the present basis of representation. But while 11 States remain without any representation in either House of Congress we may well postpone all mine r reforms until the Constitution as it now is shall be 1st applied in good faith by those self same Constitution mend ers. Justice and equality mightalsobe romoted by carrying the reform into some other quarters. There can, for example, be no good reason England States, with a poulation of little over 3 millions should have 12 votes in the Senate of the U.S., and the State of NewYork, with a poulation of about 4 millions, only two. Wou d it not promote justice and equality to reconstruct in this respect NewEnglands. lucky 6 as well as Dixies unlucky 11? The 4th section of the amendment prohibits the assumption of the rebel debt by the U.S or any of them. But I ima ine there is no hot haste required to prohibit {In constitutional enactment the payment of this debt by the bankrupt States of the South; and I do not suppose that any man outside of a lunatic asylum ever dreamed it would be paid by an one else. Besides, a constitutional amendment has already been passed this session by Congress to the same effect. The 5th and last section of the amendment empowers Congress to enforce by appropriate legislation the provisions of the article. pon this latter it will not be necessary to remark. The amendment is accompanied by a bill, founded in justice and equality why the 6 New the 1st section of which prepose s to prescribe the conditions of the future admission of the States in these words: “.13 assets.(atomizattfimtfim blwl, That wheneverthe above recited amendment FlHtll have becomepart of the Constitution of the U.S and any State lately in insurrection shall have ratified the same and shall have modified its constitution and laws in conformity therewith, it the fo Sens&Reps. from, asfutechrhave State. taken the required oaths of offioe.be admitted into Congress as such. It will be observed that even after any State lately in insurrection shall have complied with the condition, “and shall have ratified the amendment and modified its constitution in conformity therewith, the Sens&Reps from such State, if duly elected and qualified, may, ” not shall, but “may, ” “after having taken the required oaths of office, he admitted into Congress as such.” The precious boon thus graciously tendered by the reconstruction committee as the reward of absolute submission to all its behests is after all but a chance of representation dependent upon the pleasure of that or some similar committee, and to be regulated, doubtless, by the political exigencies of the times. Perpetual exclusion, of course, is not contemplated y the committee, and representation is doubtless intended to be allowed at as early a day as is consistent with the safety of the Republican party and the 4 years isfranchisement provide by the 3rd section is only intended to make the next presidential election entirely sure, and to secure a safe working majority in Congress to support the incoming Administration. The imaginations of some gentlemen become strangely excited in the argument of this question of southern representation. the rearet ose who declaiin upon it as if it were proposed to bring into this House unrepentant reels still breathing treason against the Government and plotting its overthrow while claiming to have a voice in its councils. There is no such proposition. If there were such a proposition I am sure it would have no advocates upon this floor. If such representatives were sent from the South, the majority have the power to exclude them, or to expel them after they had obtained an entrance. It is argued that those who have once rebelled against the Government deserve to be disfranchised; but you cannot disfranchise a majority of the voters of a State without the establishment of an oli rehy; and the Constitution as our fathers madae it guaranties a RFG to every State. Besides, it is not for them alone that the Union is to be restored, but for ourselves also, and our children. Every hour during which we govern the 11 States with their 12 million people as conquered provinces carries us further away from the original landmarks of the Constitution and brings us nearer to centralization and military despotism.