Mr. RAYMOND. Iprefer not to yield now for any question. If Istop for that purpose my whole time may be consumed. hen I shall have finished, I will, if it be the pleasure of the House, submit most cheerfully to any cross examination to which any member may desire to subject me. Now, sir, the provisions for amendment in our Constitution are very rigid; and it has been made a question by many writers on constitutional law whether they are not too rigid, for a nation so constant and so rapid in its growth as ours, and whether on that account the Constitution is not the more liable to be overridden and its authority transcended with the assent of the nation itself. Why, sir, bear in mind that of the 36 States constituting this Union ten States may defeat any amendment that may be proposed. Now, you can find ten States that together have less than 2 million people, and in every one of those ten States an amendment proposed by Congress may be voted down by a popular majority of less than 1,000, while in the other 26 States the vote may be unanimous in favor of the same amendment. It is not likely that this will occur, but it is among the possibilities of the case; so that less than 2 million people nay, less than 10,000 people in ten States may defeat an amendment demanded by the 30 millions of the remaining States. If we hold with many that the loyal States alone may amend the Constitution, we can find 7 States out of the 26, with less than a million of population, who can absolutely defeat any amendment that may be and advocated by the other 25 millions. Considering these possibilities; considering the extreme difficulty at all times of obtaining the assent of 3/4ths of all the States to amendments concerning which public sentiment is greatly divided, I think there is force in the objection that the provisions of our Constitution for its own amendment are some what too rigid. The real Constitution, the governing sentiment of the country, has not full and fair play. But without dwelling longer upon these abstract points, I i. to say that the war has developed certain principles and sentiments in the national mind which ought to find a place in the structure and Constitution of the government. I believe the nation demands that they shall in some way be made the basis upon which the Union is to be fully restored and the practical operations of the Government resumed. The settled sentiment of the nation, in my judgment, demands guarantees against future attempts at secession, guarantees against an inequality of rights and franchises based upon arbitrary distinctions of race or color, uarantees for the inviolability of i. the national and the sanctity of the public credit. I have no doubt at all that the will and purpose of this nation today is, and has been ever since the war closed, that there shall be in the constitution some provision more effective than any yet existing for an equality of rights of all men in this country, and for their protection in the enjoyment of them; for an absolute and immediate equality of civil rights, and for an equality of political rights just as soon as the other and more pressing necessities of the nation will permit. I think there should be embodied in the Constitution a provision for the absolute equality in civil rights of all the inhabitants of the land; and I believe that there will be soon, if there is not now, from the people, not of one section, not of one class of States, but of all sections and of all States, an equally strong and equally resistless demand for a corresponding equality of political rights. I think in the next place that the nation as a nation demands an absoluteguarantee against future attempts at seeession. The people in tend that this effort at secession and revolution shall not be repeated. They do not intend to go through again what they have already gone through; nor do they intend that the suffering and the sacrifices they have already experienced shall be without their due effect upon the fundamental law of the nation. It is not a passing caprice, but the settled judgment of the nation, that these guarantees are essential to the development of the national power and the protection of the public liberties. It is a condition which is much more likely to grow stronger than to grow weaker, for it is founded in justice and consults the public good. If these guarantees were once imbedded in the written Constitution, as the principles and sentiments which demand them are already imbedded in the unwritten but real Constitution of the nation, and the Government were then restored to full, regular activity in all its functions, we should have the highest promise of rapid and peaceful national growth and prosperity for at least another generation, which, as Jefferson held, was quite as long as any Constitution ought to last without revision. Now, sir, let us see what provision we have attempted to make for meeting this strong and just demand of the national will. We have 1st the constitutional amendment adopted by Congress at its last session and submitted to the States for their ratification. And now we have this bill intended to supply what that amendment lacked. Now, the constitutional amendment meets the demand of which I have spoken partially, but only to a certain extent. It does provide for an equality of civil rights. It holds out an inducement to the people of the southern States for the extension of political rights and the elective franchise to the colored race, by increasing their representative power in the national councils in proportion as they shall thus extend the suffrage. Whether this goes far enough or not is a disputed question. Congress at the last session thought it was as far as we could wisely and safely go at present, and I think the people concur in that opinion. And the amendment guaranties the sacredness of the public debt, and clothes Congress with such an enlargement of power as these new provis lons may require. All these provisions are just and wise, and thoroughly in harmony with the sentiment of the nation. But these are all which the amendment contains which are in the nature of a guar. antee at all. There is a partial and temporary diminution of political power imposed upon the South, which is just and right, but wholly ineffective as a guarantee; and disabilities are imposed upon classes of the southern people somewhat more sweeping than the public safety requires, and calculated to do more harm by exasperating the South than it does good by securing the peace and security of the nation. The amendment should be maintained, though I believe slight changes might be made in the section to which I have thus referred, which, without in the least degree impairing its value to the nation, would insure its ultimate acceptance by the southern States and thus render it of practical value in the restoration of the Union. But, on the subject of future attempts at secession the proposed amendment contains nothing which can, except by the remotest inference, be construed into a guarantee. The learned andingenious member from Ohio [Mr. BINGHAM] contends, I am aware, that such a guarantee is wrapped up in the 1st section of the amendment, that which relates to an equality of civil rights. But I confess my ina bility to perceive it very clearly, and I am quite sure the public sentiment would be better satisfied with one more distinct and explicit in its terms. There is a difference of opinion as to whether the States did, under the Constitution as it now stands, by their attempted secession, actually forfeit their representaion in Congress and their right to a share in the political power of the nation. But there is no difference whatever in the opinion that, however this may have been in the past, it shall not be left open to doubt in the future. I believe every State of the Union those which were loyal and those which were not will now agree upon an amendment to the Constitution providing that whenever here: after any State shall attempt to secede, or shall enter into any compact or agreement with any other State to secede from the Union, and shall sustain such attempt or agreement by force of arms, that State shall thereby and thenceforth forfeit all right to participate in the national Government by being represented in Congress or in the Electoral C. until readmitted thereto by law. such a provision, imbedded in the fundamental law,ingrafted upon the Constitution, would leave no shadow of doubt upon this subject hereafter, and would stand as a.oguarantee against secession through all time to come. By the amendment already adopted secession is not forbidden, nor are officers of the Government of the U.S. even required to swear paramount allegiance to the national Government. By the amendment I have suggested secession, or attempts at secession, are not only forbidden but are forbidden under a distinct and formidable penalty. I think some such amendment.beingrafted on the Constitution, and I deem it the duty of congress to present it, in addition to the one already pending, to the States for adoption. As for this bill, sir, I need scarcely say that it contains nothing whatever which can possi bly be regarded as a guarantee. It is simply a law, a law which the Supreme Court will unuestionably annul, and which any coming congress may repeal. It has no single element of stability, nothing which can guaranty anything to anybody beyond the day which witnesses its enactment. In my judgment the nation demands something more stable, more definite, more fundamental, more radical, something which reaches the very root of secession and plucks it up more thoroughly than anything contained either in this bill or in the constitutional amendment which has been proposed by Congress. It will be objected, especially by gentlemen on the other side of the House, that these acts and amendments tend to a greater centralization and consolidation of power in the Government than is contemplated by the Constitution as it is. I cannot deny that. I concede that it does. But unless I am mistaken in my observation of the current of public sentiment, the war through which we have just passed has developed in the nation a feeling favorable to some further extension of the power of the General Government, a feeling that in some respects, those which the war has brought into special prominence, some enlargement of the national authority is desirable and neeessary. It cannot have escaped observation that this tendency to consolidation of Governments is oing on all over the world. The sentiment is not peculiar to us. What we see going on in Europe every day shows that the tendency is to centralization the accumulation of national power. In Italy, where only a few years ago the tendency was toward a confederacy of separate States, it is now toward consolidation. We all see what has taken place in Germany within a year or two, where the whole people, obeying the same tendency, have followed the lead of their able and auda cious statesman and consolidated that whole country into one powerful Government under the lead of Prussia. In the British North American Provinces a few years ago the tend ency was toward separation maintaining the rights and authority of each of the separate Provinces. Then came a brief interval in which annexation to the U.S. found favor. Now, the general tendency is toward consoli dation in the hands of one general Government which shall wield the power of them all. Now, sir, we, under the ordinary operation of things, would not have been free from this same tendency. I think there has been from the day the Constitution was framed until the present time among a large portion of the people of this country a conviction that there ought to be more central authority; and although the doctrine of State rights received great development immediately after the formation of our Government, and acquired further force from the existence of slavery and the struggle of that institution to preserve itself, I think there has always been in the nation a desire for somewhat more of centralization and consolidation in the national authority. That central authority I admit should be kept within limits and watched with jealous care; for I agree thoroughly with the Gentfrom Illinois [Mr. BAKERJ when he declared the other day that he would rather trust the States with the defense of personal liberty than leave it in the hands of Congress. But it is not wholly a question of personal liberty. The people do really look to the States for the preservation of personal liberty but it is also more or less in the public mid a question of power, of grandeur, of consideration among other nations. Every man would rather belong to a great, powerful, and glorious nation than to a small State which can only wield a limited sovereign authority. The war has strengthened this feeling of national pride, this preference for national over State distinction; and while I admit the force of the objection and the necessity of watching care fully and keeping within proper bounds the development of this feeling, I think that some extension of national power must be expected. But I must leave this line of remark and return to the subject more directly under discussion. The bill before the House, it seems to me, will be followed by certain practical consequences to which we should not shut our eyes. Its 1st effect will be to implant in each southern State a rival government to that which now exists." There will be 2 governments contending for ascendency, one organized on the principles of those which exist there now the States controlling the franchise the other organized under the provisions of this bill, and resting upon universal suffrage dic Stated by Congress as its basis. It is impossible that they should not come into collision, 1st a collision of authority, then a collision of arms; and under the pretense of securing their peace and the rights of all we shall have given the southern States a fierce and bloody civilWar. You will say that the power of the nation shall be exercised to sustain the governments which will be formed under our authority. But who wields the force of the nation? Not Congress. We cannot direct the movements of the Army. That is done by the POTUS, and you can scarcely ven ture to hope that, with his opinions, the new governments we propose to establish would be sustained with much vigor or effect. The prac tical effect of such a step as we are asked to take would be quite the reverse of the results we profess to seek. The honorable member from Pennsylvania [Mr. Scofield] said the other day that however our opinions might differ we all sought the same grand object the peace, order, and prosperity of our common country; we all agreed that we could not afford to have the South become to this nation what Ireland has been to England and Hungary to Austria and Poland to Russia a discontented, decaying, rebellious section of the common empire. I ask gentlemen to examine this bill in the light, of that opinion Is there anything in it which tends to promote peace in the southern States, where it is to take effect? Will it give any better security for the rights of any portion of their inhabitants? Is it not certain to stir up strife, to plant new seeds of discontent and of civilWar, to array class against class and race against race in every State to be affected by its provisions? There can be but one answer to these inqui ries. No man can be so blind as to doubt that these will be its sure and its only results. I say nothing of its effect upon the general pros perity of the whole country. Whatever promotes discord and strife in the southern States postpones restoration, destroys commerce, reels capital, deranges the whole system of 'industry by which alone the very men who are the objects of our special care can live, dimin ishes the ability of those States to pay taxes and contribute their share to the common bur dens, and in every way does most serious and lasting injury to all the interests of our common country. It seems to me quite clear that the bill can effect no good purpose whatever, either to the nation, to the southern States, to the colored race, or the men who have stood by the Union during the recent war. I cannot help believing that they will all be injured, seriously and fatally, by an attempt to carry its provisions into effect. The bill cannot possibly produce good results in any portion of the country. It cannot meet the national demand or satisfy the national expectations. Its advocacy may meet certain party exigencies and personal aspirations I use the expression in no offensive sense certain desires of individuals to carry out theories and try experiments of government, but beyond this I see no good purpose which it can possibly serve. f it were possible to modify in certain unimportant and exasperating details, and without in the least impairing its real effectiveness and practical utility, that clause of the constitutional amendment already adopted which imposes disabilities upon certain classes of persons engaged in the rebellion; and if then, such an additional amendment as I have suggested, forbidding under penalty of forfeiture of all national representation during the pleas ure of Congress, any attempt hereafter on the of any State to secede; and if it were distinctly stated that upon the adoption of these amendments the States should be read mitted to representation, I believe all the amendments would be adopted promptly and cheerfully by 3/4ths of all the States, and that the Union could be restored upon that firm and enduring basis to more than its ancient peace, prosperity, and renown. This is my belief. Others may not share it. They may think that none of these amendments can i. adopted by 3/4ths of all the States. Very well; grant it. Those gentlemen who say this are not without a theory fully adequate to meet it; why not act upon that? They maintain that the actual sovereignty of the nation rests with those States which never renounced their share of it, and that 3/4ths of those States are as competent to ratify constitutional amendments as their representatives are to enact laws. My learned friendfrom Ohio [Mr. BINGHAM] holds this opinion and sustains it with his accustomed ability and eloquence. The argument in its support is certainly not without force, and the theory is held by some very able writers on constitutional law. But why do not hose on this floor who hold it act upon it? The member from Pennsylvania [Mr. Sco FIELDJ the other day sought to hold the SecyState responsible for dereliction of duty in this respect; and denounced him in what seemed to me very unbecoming terms, and with utterly undeserved severity, for failure in this regard. He did not deem it unworthy of himself or in violation of his self respect to speak of the SecyState venerable not more for age than for the signal sorvices to his country and the cause of freedom every where, by which his long and laborious life, devoted wholly from early manhood to the public service, has been made illustrious as a “perfidious old man; ” perfidious, the gentleman says, in not having proclaimed, as required by law, the adoption of the constitutional amendment, for which 3/4ths of the loyal States have cast their votes,I cannot err in saying that the Gentfrom Pennsylvania knew that there is no such law. The law requires the SecyState to cer tify the adoption of amendments when ratified by 3/4ths of all the States. He acts under that law. If Congress desires him to act upon another theory why not enact another law? If Congress believes that to be the true theory of the Constitution why not put it upon the statute book? And I may ask the same question in regard to action upon the whole subject of reconstruction. Why does not Congress why does not that party which has an overwhelming majority in both branches a majority large. to render the veto a barren scepter in the hands of the Executive, do something that shall be final and effective? We hear much of the congressional policy, the policy of the dominant party, which the people are said to. have in and which some of us are somewhat vehemently denounced for not supporting. But what is it, and why is it not enacted? Last year we were told it was the constitutional amendment; this year the same men who made that their basis then discard it now. Last year that man was untrue to his party obligations who did not stand by it; this year the man is declared to be faithless to his party who does. This is not meeting the expectations of the nation. Professions, declamations, menaces are not what the people demand, and they may well say to Congress, as the impatient Hamlet said to the hio, in the mimic play “Leave thy damnable faces, and begin.” If the majority has a policy of reconstruction let it bring that policy forward and take the responsibility of acting upon it. I am quite ready to vote for it if it commends itself to my judgment, and I am quite as ready to be out voted and submit if it does not. But the country demands action of some kind upon this. subject, concerning which Congress has been talking, and doing nothing but talk, now for 2 successive sessions. Mr. Speaker, I will not enter upon any of the other branches of this great subject which invite attention. I have very nearly exhausted my time, and I fear more than exhausted the atience, though not the indulgence, of the house. The political state of the country seems to me to become more and more com3.unsatisfactory, and threatening every pay that we sit here without action. Let us adopt some measures of reconstruction or restoration at the earliest possible moment. If we cannot get all we want let us take what we can get. The condition of the country requires decisive action. The feeling of the people demands it. I am not alarmed at the prospect of strife and collision, greatly as I should deprecate it as an injury to the country and a serious check on its prosperity. But I have too much faith in the inherent and irrepressible energy of the American people, in their self respect and self command, and in their devotion to their country and its cherished institutions, to allow me to believe that this nation is doomed to perish under any strife that can be waged upon its soil. Every nation has had to earn its manhood, to fortify its frame, to strengthen its muscle by just such trials as we have encountered, but the end of which, it seems, we have not yet reached. Whatever further trials may await us I believe the nation will emerge from them strong, bold, and free, preserving its liberties as a Republic and enforcing its respect upon all the nations of the earth by its strength, its liberty, and its adherence to substantial justice and right in its dealings with its own people as with all the world.