Mr. PHELPS.R. Speaker, the measure now under consideration belongs to that class of questions intimately connected withlarge the great sn ject of restoration of the States lately in rebellion; nestions of greater moment have never engage the attention of public men in this or in any country. In the consideration of questions of this character, we are not, in my judgment, to be trammeled by the ordinary rou tine of party politics, or coerced by the machinery of party iscipline and I propose in this ease, as in all others of a similar character, to bring my own individual judgment to bear upon the merits of the pending proposition, paying all due respect to the opinions of abler and Wiser men, without falling under the absolute control of. any combination in or out of this Ca itol. Mr. peaker, itill becomes a Representative in part of the State of Maryland, a State which became self emancipated during the progress of this war, a State which abruptly and without compensation gave liberty tomore than 80,000 slaves, all of whom were val uable and tangible property to her citizens; I say it would il become me, standing here as the Representative of such a State, to oppose the main principle upon which this bill is based. Not only so, sir, but it would not consist either with my own feelings or my own principles to deny the liberal, humane, beneficent idea which underlies the measure. I believe that these freedmen ought to be protected by the Government. I believe that they ought to be encouraged to labor and to earn their livelihood, as well as to learn; that they ought to be protected in their rights under contracts, and especially from the danger of being reduced by any process, direct or circuitous. to the condition of slaveryfrom which we have rescued them. 4 million slaves liberated, not for the sake of humanity, but by a stroke of policy, not for their sakes, but our own, are not now to be coolly drop (1 by a Government which will in that case have made so shrewd and cruel a use of them. I am therefore clear in the opinion that some legislation looking to the en proposed to be attained by this bill is, in general, expe dient and necessary. That it is constitutional, I have as little doubt. Congress is clothed with ample power over the subject by the 2nd section of article 13 of the Amendments to the Constitution of the U.S. That legislation of the general scope and character embodied in the pendin bill is “appropriate legislation” toward enforcing the total abolishment of slavery, is a proposition not requiring argument. But, Mr. Speaker, while such legislation may be constitutional, expedient, and necessary, it may at the same time be overdone. In attempting it, we should not forget that we are traveling over new and dangerous ground. In endeavoring to remove an actual, or prevent a possible evil, we may establish a precedent for a worse. The limits of just protection may be exceeded. Features of profligate extravagance, or officious, minute, and aggravating intrusion into the details of social and domestic life may counterbalance all the advantages which oth erwise would recommend such a measure to the support of every loyal man. Efforts have been made, and veryi ngeniously, by gentlemen opposed to the bill, to bring it within the last named specification, by arguing from the language used in the 7th and 8th sections an inference of a design to control State laws in respect to the marriage relation. such a construction is not warranted by the terms employed. but it is, I think, more difficult to relieve the bill from the charge of extravagance. I particularly refer to the 3rd section: That the SecyWar may direct such issues colfupdrionvgisions, clothing. fuel, and other supplies. in medical stores and transportation and afford such aid, medicalor otherwise, as he may deem needful for the immediate and temporary shelter and supply of destitute and suffer inl rrefulzces and freedmen, their wives and children, under such rules and regulations as he may direct. This provision seems designed not so much to encourage these people to work and earn their bread by the sweat of their brow as to depend upon the bounty of the Government for their support. This savors rather too strongly of agrarianism. It establishes a dangerous prece dent, which maybe used hereafter when from the teeming cities of the North may come up a cry for a panpers bureau. Wh not? Why should it not be granted? Why should not indigent white people likewise be boarded at the public expense in great national alms houses? I can see no reason for a distinction, except that by the operation of the war these people were suddenly taken from the care of those whose interest as well as duty it had been to provide for them. They were thus thrown helpltess and homeless, individually and in masses, upon the hands of our military commanders as our armies moved through their territory. Our generals had either to issue rations or see them starve. They adopted, from humanity or from necessity, the plan of issuin supplies. That policy was sanctione in the original act of March3, 1866, of which the pending bill is an extension. By that act, this arrangement was only to last during the war, and for one year thereafter. It was a tem orary, provisional policy, forced upon the government by the necessity of events, but limited to expire within a reasonable time after it was presumed the necessity should have been obviated. But I most seriously object to that feature of the 3rd section which clothes with such undefined powers and unlimited means the executive officers named as almoners of national bounty. Under that section as it stands, with its vague and loose generalitiesz the whole mass of freedmen and refugees might be billcted upon the public Treasury. Sir, there are perhaps few of those people to whom the specious terms “ destitute an sufferiu ” might not in some of the various senses an shades of meaning of which the words are capable be held by zealous and sympathetic agents to apply. It is true, that the assistance contemplated is restricted to the “immediate and temporary shelter and supply ” of the classes named. But vagrants and idlers may come again and again to the officers of the bureau, bringing with them their wives and children, and each time receive immediate and temporary supplies as for a new case of destitution and suffering. Again sir, we hear it seriously proposed, here an at the other wing of the capitol, to make of these people an element of political power by extending to them the elective franchise. Some propose to accomplish this result by constitutional amendment. Others hold, with revolutionary and sublime and acit, that the powers of Congress are already amp e, and should be exercised in that behalf. Others again, expect to accomplish the same result indirectly, and by indefinitely protracting the complete restoration of the 11 prodigal States, coerce them at last to accept negro suffrage as the final and indispensable condition of their purgation. Suppose, Mr. Speaker, that unfortunately for the peace and happiness of the countr, and calamitously to the black race itself, the result aimed at and already accomplished in the DistCol so far as this House is concerned, namely, the establilshment of the monstrous burlesque and parody of republicanism, presented in universal and tinqualified negro suffrage, should be accomplished throughout the States designed for the operation of this bill. suppose these freedmen and refu eesto be not on y “ destitute and suffering, " Within the latitudinarian liraseol ogy of the 3rd section, but voters an “sovereigns” as well. Is this House willing, is the country willing, to intrust such an enormous and unlimited fund to the untrammeled discretion of any officers of the Government, to be used by partisans for partisan purposes? It is not to be presumed, you may say, that we will ever have a SecyWar, a Commissioner or subordinates, capable of such monstrous profligacy. Very well; then do not yourselves corrupt t cm by placing this enormous tem ta.tion in their way. The possession of absolute power we are told “ makes weak men wicked, and wicked men mad.” Let us take care, and not make virtuous men weak to begin with, by burdening their innocence with such a plethora and glut of free quarters, free rations, and free passes, in the midst of a “destitute and suffering” population of voters. But, Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding these objections, which I urge seriously and in good faith, not as an enemy. but as a friend of the freedmen, not as the foe of the Freedmens Bu reau, but as its advocate and well wisher, and which I advance with a sincere hope that before the final vote is taken the Gentfrom Massachusetts who now honors me with his attention [Mr. ELIOT] may so amend the bill which he has reported as to obviate the most important difficulties which have been illustrated by the full discussion it has received; notwithstanding this, I have to repeat that the cardinal principle of the measure 18one that I cordially approve. I believe that the black race in the South are left by the war in a state of purpilave. Sir, they are not in a condition to receive the sovereign prerogatives of American citizenship, and this bill practically recognizes that eat truth, and builds upon it as upon a solid foundation. The very discrimination it makes between “destitute and suffering” negrocs, and destitute and sufferin white paupers, proceeds n on the distinction that, in the omitted case, civil rights and immunities are already sufficiently protected by the possession of political power, the absence of which in the case provided for necessitates governmental protection. One word, with the permission of the Gentfrom Massachusetts, [Mr. ELIOT, ] (in contravention somewhat of his point oforder) with respect to the proposition to amend the constitutional basis of representation, upon which my vote, together with his own, was recorded in the negative. During the single hour that that measure wh before this House for its consideration I vainly sought the floor for a word of explanation, but was, like very many other gentlemen, summarily silenced by the operation of the previous question, moved by the Gentfrom Pennsylvania who reported the resolution, Mr. Srnvsss.] such headlong and uncalle for haste to change the fundamental law of the republic, in fact to substitute anew corner stone or the venerable one on which it had reposed so long, was a proceeding in itself that I could not conscientiously sanction by my vote. It matters little to me what course others around me may think proper to take, I for one shall never vote to amen the Constitution of the U.S. without some opportunity to see with my own eyes and deliberately weigh with my own judgment the text itself, the ipsis sima verba, of the proposed amendment. Sir, that instrument is the organic law of a Republic which I firmly believe is destined to exand until its citizens are numbered by 100s of millions and its territorial limits are coextensive with the shores of the continent. I believe that in the providence of God centuries hence will find that immortal, blood bought, blood saved, blood consecrated charter still the some grand monument of human wisdom and bulwark of human liberty that came down to us from revolutionary sires and shall I vote to change that instrument in a vital point, in a point that involves the representation of the State whose interests have been in part confided to my care, with less ceremony and upon shorter notice than is usually required to consummate an alteration in the constitution of a social club or of a literary society? The proposed amendment, not laid upon the desks of members, not even printed: and only known to the body of the House as their ears caught its words from the Clerks table! The proposition, as originally reported from the JtCommee of the Senate and House by the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. STEVENS] wasin the following terms. JtResolution proposingto amend the Constitution of the U.S. Resolvedby the Senate and HoRep of the U.S.A. in (hngrcm assembled, S2/3rds of both Houses concurring, )That the following article heproposedto the Legislatures of the 7 ] States as an amendment to the Constitution of the U.S., which, when ratified by 3/4ths of said Legislatures, shall be valid as part of said Constitution. namely: Anricnn Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union according to their respective numbers counting the whole nuumber of persons in each State, excluding Indians not, tnxcil: ded, That whenever the elective franchise shall be deniedor abridgedin any State on account of runs or color. all persons of such race or color shall be excluded from the basisof representation. This resolution, it was originally intended, i should be passed through the House upon the day of its introduction before the “ going down of the sun, " in the words of the gentleman who reported it, [Mr. Srsvsssj he House revolted at this recipitancy, and the discussion which ensued pand the numerous substitutes which were presented by members friendly to a readjustment of the constitutional basis of representation, sufficiently proved the necessity for deliberation. After a weeks debate the JtResolution was ordered to be recommitted, and on the next day it was again reported by the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, Mr. STEvENS] with the remark that “ the committee had merely omitted the words direct taxes, leaving this for future amendment, as they did not wish to embarrass the subject.” Merely Omitted “direct taxes!” Why, that was just 1/2 the subject matter covered by the proposition, and made the resolution reported isubstantially and to all intents and purposes an entirely new measure. I have made this statement, Mr. Speaker, in justice to myself and to those who sent me here and to place myself right upon the record. Since the war has changed the status of 4 million slaves, designated in the Constitution as “other persons, ” and creditedwith a fractional representation because of their status, the equilibrium of political power thus essentially disturbed, unquestionably, in my judgment, demands a revision and readjustment of the constitutional basis of representation. That readjustment I would have made as proposed by the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, Mr. BRO0MALIq] whose amendment, if it had been submitted to a vote would, with a slight modification, have received mine. The proposition I refer to would have been as follows: Provided, That whenever the elective franchise shall be denied by the constitution or laws of any State to any proportionof its maleoitilens over the age of 21 yours up account of race.the same proportion of its populationshall be excluded from ts basisof representation. But after all, Mr. Speaker, I am free to confess that I have not such faith in these constitutional amendments as the great specific for the national malady as many gentlemen enter tain, for whose ability and putriotisml have the profoundest respect. The rent constitutional amendment has been ma e formulated by Congress, ratified by the States, but really made by the pen of Lincoln and the sword of Grant. he great constitutional convention has been held; its debates were awful; they were stormy and bloody; thes eeches were deafenin as thunder eals, and the votes were winge with death. Everyman had a right to represent himself in that august primary convention of the people. Its results are as decisive as its proceeings were sublime. The great fact of the Government, the right of the majority to rule, the extinguishment of secession and slavery, these are the irreversible guarantees we have obtained, and these we shall retain forever.