Mr. NEWELL. Mr. Speaker, I propose to submit some remarks upon the annual message of the POTUS I may premise that my acquaintance with the President extends back nearly 20 years, when associated with him as a member of this body. We sat upon opposite sides of this Chamber, and seldom voted together; but I honored him and all his associates honored him as the advocate of progress, the friend of humanity, the able and uncompromising chamion of the right of man to the fruits of his abor, and to tie possession of so much of the unoccupied public domain as that labor could cultivate. knew and honored him as the defender of all those rights which underlie the DeclarIndep as living principles, pregnant with a meaning and aninterpretation which he has lived to see accorde to them by many who in that day professed to pregard them only as “glittering generalities.” I have known him since that ime as faithful among the faithlcss in the esperate ordeal throuvh which we have passed, giving unmis takable testimon of fealty to the cause of liberty and the nion; Persecuted, defamed, plundered, driven from his home and family, unted like abeast of re, he upheld the cause of his ecuntry and bade defiance to the armed legions of treason and death. For all these the Union party elevated him to the place he occupies. For all these he has my confidence today, and I do not believe, as many would have us believe, that he will prove unfaithful to the great trust confided to his keeping. He may differ from Congress as to the particular method of reconstructin the Union; but I up cal to the debates an actions of the Senate an this House, as well as to the people and press of the country, and ask if there is una nimity anywhereon this mostimportant matter. On the great questions of the preservation of the Government and the freedom and elevation of mankind he is eminently sound and consist ent. There is no material difference on vital points between him and ourselves; none that may not be speedily adjusted by conference and conciliation. To denounce, him as a traitor who, hand to hand, has throttled treason to the death; to brand him as a usurperwhose whole energies have been devoted to the welfare and improvement of his race is to utteramali nant libel n on mankind. Sir, having so we 1ful filled the varied duties of his li c, let us not reproach and distrust him without cause, but rather sustain him in all just and reasonable measures, and leave the result to Him who guides the destinies of nations. There are many subjects, Mr. Speaker, in the excellent message before us to which I would like to advert, but time will not permit, and I shall therefore confine myremarks to the question which so properly engrosses so large a s are of our attention as well as that of the whole countrythe reconstruction of the Union. The nature and character of the Government are such as to constitute it an anomaly in the family of nations. It represents the solidarity of the States combined with an individuality of each as respects all matters and powers not delegated to the General Government which leaves it perfectly free and untrammcle in its appropriate sphere. It represents, in fact, in a community of nations that freedom of action which in a community of poo)10 is compatible with the greatest good of the ody politic. As the latter is the highest type of individual existence in the social state, so the former is the most perfect representative of a community of nations having one paramount object and principle, namely, the greatest amount of indiviiiual national liberty compatible with the collective national security. It was evidentl foreseen by the fathers of the Constitution that it behooved them to restrain on the one hand a too great latitude of individual State authority and action, and on the other a too icatconcentration of national power. Thus to constitution have to the States collectively the right to maiic war or declare peace; to impose taxes on imports to create and maintaina standing Army and Navy; to dispose of the public lands; to regulate commerce between the States; to naturalize foreigners; to accredit to and receive embassadors from foreign Powers; and to do certain other acts specified in the constitution. To the States were left certain rights, powers, and duties, principally pertaining to local government, and having reference to matters which it was acknow eged they were better capable of supervising and regulating. The constitution seeks to make the States sovereign in their sphere of duties and the national Government supreme in its sphere. In carrying out these ideas the framers found a difficult and delicate task. From the organization of the Government to the present day it has been a subject of debate and discussion at all periods, giving rise, more or less, to bitter partisan strife and sectional animosity, which finally culminated in the late gigantic rebellion against the authority of the national Governmentand the Union of the States composing it and in this connection I might add that history has been repeating itself in the case of that of our own country. The party strifes and revolutions, the contest for powerin all nations, have been produced by the collisions of those who would strengthen the central power on the one hand, an those who would weaken it on the other. The history of Rome, from the earliest period to the time when power was almost entirely concentrated in the person of the emperors, is nothing but the record of such a contest, which had its beginning in the birth of the nation, its culmination in the period of its highest prosperity, and its end in its era of decay and dissolution. The aim of the fathers was to preservesuch a happy mean between the concentration and diffusion of power that this contest should be reduced to its minimum of virulence, and that thus those violent collisions, political and revolutionary, which had marketfthe history of the world from the earliest period, should be so mitigated as notto endanger national safety and individual freedom. The combined wisdom of these patriotic men produced our present constitution. It is a noble monument to their ability; but, unfor tunately, like all human instruments, it was imperfectly constructed, not because the theory was wrong. but because of the existence in the country of an institution so contrary to the genius of free government, and to the very principles upon which the constitution itself was founded, that it was impossible to incor porate it into the organic law o that the latter could be preserved ree from its contaminating influence. It was as if the surgeon were to innoculato the living healthy body with the vim of a loathsome disease. The resultwould certainly be that a contest for dominion between health and disease would be produced, in which life or death would eventually triumph. The framers of the constitution did what they considered best under the circumstances. They made freedom the rule and slavery the exception in the organization of the Government. They declared in favor of the former in langu e the most. emphatic and sublime in history while they placed the latter, as the fondly hoped, in a position favorable for ultimate extinction. ndeed, they so worded the organic act itself that slavery was decided to be so abhorrent to the sentiment of justice, libert, and common humanity as to render it utter y unworthy to be named therein. I have before said that the fathers intended to organize a Government in which freedom should be the rule and slavery the exception. The whole drift of their action was toward such a consummation; and for years the tendency of the so cial life and industry of the pee 10 was to the same end. State after State abo ished slavery, until finally the free predominated over the slave States in numbers and population. Slavery was driven toward a particular section of the country, where the cultivation of the cotton plant rendered it so profitable and at the same time constituted it such a monopoly in the hands of a few powerful. wealthy, talented, and ambitions men as to make it an element of political power and engine of ambitious designs so as to render its existence incompatible with individual liberty and national safety. Indeed, in such gigantic proportions did this institution loom upon the po tical horizon that the declaration, this country cannot exist half slave and half free, ” burst from the li s of 2 of our leading statesmen as if forced from them in the agony produced by a contemplation of our political uture. But it was not so much these men as the good men and true of the country speaking through them who uttered at that time words which were prophetic of the consummation which was so near at hand that for the 1st time prophecy blended itself with history. Yes, for the 1st time in the history of the world the prophet became the chief actor in the events which he foretold, even to the extent of sealing with his life the book which, under the direction of an overruling Providence, he was selected to open. Thus, instead, as the fathersintended, of freedom being the rule and slavery the exception, on account of the eneroachments of this institution, and the ambitious designs of those who used it as an engine of political power, there was dan or that slavery would become the rule and freedom the exception. It aspired to make every Dept of the Government subservient to itself and its interests. It oisoued also the social life of the people, unermined their belief in self government, weakened their faith in the princip c on which the Government was founded, the principle of universal suffrage; in fine, it had so succeeded in debauehing the conscience of alarge mass of the people as to render them fit tools in the hands of men who were determined that slavery should rule the country or that they would dissolve the Union. had so this constitution of our fathers, because of the existence of an element foreign to its genius and principles, flatly subversive of the ideas on which it. was founded, and which gave the lie direct to its declaration of rights, was in such danger of utter destruction that the patriotic people of the nation found themselves compelle to abandon it altogether as the regis of their liberty and safety or take up arms in its defense. This latter alternative was taken, and the result was that the contest so long waged between individual State liberty and national security was finally and forever decided by the ultimo ratio of nations and of war. For years the contest between the doctrines represented by Thomas Jefferson on the one hand, and Alexander Hamilton on the other, couvulsed the country. The State rights men demanded one concession after another in favor of slavery. It was at one time the right to ture and to aid in capture; at another, the reigapt to carry into Territories; at another, the right of passage through and domicil in the States; at another, the principle that the constitution carried it everywhere, and at all times; and finally, the culminating right, that of secession from the Union in order to build u a confederation of which it was to be the chief corner stone. Jeffersons idea of State rights was simply the conservation of individual and State rights. The idea of the latterday pretended followers of Jefferson was thpt State rights was the liberty given to one man to oppress his fel low, and that no power, not even the central authority itself, could intervene to shield the oppressed. This was the degeneration of a great principle of individual liberty, subordinated to social welfare, to the principle of the rate or the robber who regardsno law but rute force and such a degeneration only showed that State rights, as understood by these bad men, had passed outside and beyond the ale of civilization itself, and thus became mimical not only to the people, but actually menaced the national unity. But, indeed, when the national autho found itself unable to protect the liberties of the people, it not only failed in the 1st principles of its organization, but deenerated into an instrument of oppression. he form of the original instrument, it is true, remained, but under the modern interpretation of the principle of State rights the soul which had original y animated it had long since departed. So that the contest between the socalled advocates of State rights, which had convulsed the nation more or less from its foundation, culminated in armed rebellion against the central authority, leaving the friends of a Government founded on the natural rights of a people and universal justice no other alternative at to defend with the sword that which they had so long and so nobly contended for with the tongue and pen. I consequently, then, regard this contest as much closed by the late war as that which for years precede the Revolution was closed by the triumph of our arms at that period. As the country entered upon a new era at the close of the Revolution, so it enters upon a new era now. The Revolution settled the great principle that representation should follow taxation, and that so far as all men in these U.S. were concerned, this principle was true in theory but not in practice, and this because slavery existed as a disturbin element at that time. The result of the rebelion has made this principle for which the fathers fought not only true in theory but true in practice. The rebellion commenced in a desire either to destroy this Union or to decide that the principle for which the fathers fought for was apicable only to white men. It ended in the defeat and disgrace of the men who upheld and fought for this principle and the triumph of those who opposed it. During the contest, and while it was yet in doubt, it was found necessa to make the principles of the Declaration o In dependence an of the constitution practically as well as theoretically true by the e evation of the excetional race to the status of free citizens. this was done, and the race was called upon to aid in the struggle, and they nobly responded to the appeal. They not only helped to win their own liberty, but aided to preserve ours. The result of the rebellion, then, having made the principles of the constitution not only the oreticall. but practically true, it is our duty to see that the principles of the constitution are now carried out to the fullest extent of the idea of the framers; to have them carried out so as to embrace “all men” as truly as the fathers embraced them ideally, and would have embraced them truly but for the existence of slavery at that time. In doing this the country takes a new departure in the course toward the goal of universal freedom, and with the noble motto, “Equal and Exact justice to all men, ” inscribed upon its escutcheon, stands forth, in the presence of all nations. thoroughly purged from every impurity. Founded upon the rock of true republicanism, “universal suffrage, ” in the ages to come the waves of death an darkness may beat against it, but shall beat in vain. From the very nature of republicanism, as understood by the fathers, freedom and suffrage are concomitant, twin sisters, inseparable, mu tually dependent on each other for support and existence. Suffrage follows freedom as light follows the rising of the sun. It is by the ballot box that freedom is upheld and pe etuated. Take away that sacred right of republican government, and you leave the people no means for the redress of grievances at those of revolution. You comel those who are denied this right to resort to orce in order to obtain them. Indeed, universal suffrage is to such an extent the distinguishing feature of republican institutions that our people, from the highest to the lowest, our statesmen, our judges, and our jour nalists, have continually justihed revolution in any nation of the Old orld in which the right of suffrage is either denied to the great mass of the eoligleor so abridged as to be practically a nu lit. During the wellknown Igorr rebellion of RhdIsland, indeed, I well remember that the Democratic journals of the country, almost without exception, justified the rebels on the ground that the constitution and laws of that State left the majority of the people no other alternative save revolution because it denied the right of suffrage. Now, how can we stand up in the presence of the despotisms of the Old World and justify their oppressed peeple for waging war against a tyranny which exists in a more offensive and oppressive manner among ourselves? In most of the despotic nations of the lobe a man may, by acquiring property, by pe orming some signal service to the State, or y some other means, place himself in the governing class; but in teU. S., under our constitution, as interpreted by certain politicians and statesmen, alarge class of the people are forever excluded from the rights of free men, fromever becoming a part and arcel of the people of the U.S. Judge Taney, in the celebrated Dred Scott case, declares that no State has a right to make a citizen of the U.S.: “The constitution upon its adoption. obviously lteogoi sklafrtoiomn, the State uscaelal spaoewiteirz. ebnyi natnoythsuebpsoeliqtiuceanl t family of the U.S. anyone. no matter whero he was born, or what might be his character or condition.” Now, the question arises what constitutes the political family of the U.S.? Why, certainly those born to the soil; those who pay taxes for the support of the Government; those who are called upon to bear arms in its defense against insurrection at home and against the public enemy abroad. Every man, then, who is not an alien who refuses allegiance to the Government comes under this category; and to the extent that you abridge or deny the right of citizenshi, to that extent you violate the principles of the constitution of the U.S and the DeclarIndep, which are based on those principles. Democratic interpreters of the constitution claim that a State may make or unmake a citizen of the U.S., and limit or deny him the suffrage. I deny this. A State may regulate and control the suffrage so as to prevent frauds, and for the convenience of votin, but it cannot take from one citizen of the U.S. within its borders that which it allows to another. Again I note from Judge Taueys opinion in the Dred Scott case. Ife says: and iTJGISOBB of the African race are citizens of a State on of the U.S. they would be entitled toall of those privileges and immnnities in every State and the Statecould not restrict themI for they would hold these privileges and immunities under the paramount authority of the Federal Government; and its courtswould be bound to maintain audienforce them, the constitution and the lawsof the Stateto the contrary notwithstanding and if the States could limit or restrict them or place the partyin an inferior grade, this clanse of the constitution would be unmeaning, and could have no operation and would 5 no rights to the citizen when in another State. o would have none but what the State itself chose to allow him.” Now, Mr. Speaker, admitting, for the sake of the argument, that at the time of the adoption of the constitution, as Judge Taney claimed, the African was enslaved and subject, at the present day this is not the case. here is in this country now no subject or enslaved race. No foot of a slave or subject ollutes our soil. We are sovereign people. the constitutional amendment has eiievated all the people into what? Is it into a distinct class, separate and defined by metes and bounds, or is it into the only class we or the constitution recognize the people of the U.S.? Certainly it is the latter class, and if it is, then they are citizens of the U.S., possessing all the rights and immunities of such. Again I quote Judge lancy, who says: the words peonle of the U.S and tfingzcps are synonymous terms and mean the sumo But he also says that no State can restrict the privileges and immunities of a citizen of the U.S. I have shown that among those privileges and immunities the right of sutfra e is the most sacred of all. It is, in fact, the ark of the covenant that overshad ows, covers, and protects with its sacred wings every other right, civil as well as political. Take it away, and you take away the power of conserving and protecting all the rest. I cannot conclude but that freedom and suffrage are inseparable in our political system, just as people and citizens are synonymous terms in our constitution. Every attribute of a truly republican government confirms this, and every departure from this principle testifies to our want of faith in the ability of the people to be sovereigns, and of a growing belief in the doctrine that the government ot the select few, is more referable and more in accordance with right, justice, and humanity than the government of the entire mass. Because, and only because, the African people were an enslaved and subject race at the time of the adoptionof the constitution, they had no right that the white man was bound to respect. The emancipation reclamation has removed the badge of servitude from off their necks, but does not in any word limit the freedom into which they have been introduced. On the contrary, it is provided that Congress shall have the power to carry out that freedom to the fullest extent. The old Roman acts of emancipation, previous to the period of imperial rule, limited the status of freedmen., The emperors abolished that limit, and the freedman when emancipated became at once a citizen. Our act of emancipation neither limits nor defines the status of the freedmen. It elevates him at once into the ranks of the people. It casts him into the great mass with aldisabilities removed and all political and civil rights granted him. The State that dares to limit or abridge or deprive him altogether of those rights, violates the constitution of the U.S., and in so doing commits a high crime against the authority of that instrument as well as against the sovereignty of the people. It may not be wise to extend this high prerogative of a citizen, the elective franchise, to that large class of people who have so recently become free; indeed, I fully agree with those who claim that it would be best to withhold it until they become more accustomed to think and act for themselves, and attain a degree of knowledge and intelligence necessary to a proper appreciation of that attribute of citizens ip. gut Tsee no way of escape from the force of truth and inevitable logic of the conclusion that freedom and citizenship carry with them, paripassu, the right of suffrage. I have endeavored to show, Mr. Speaker, that in the foundation of the Government the people of all the States agreed that, in order to a more perfect Union for the sake of ourselves and our posterity, the States should give up certain rights that would otherwise inhere in them to the U.S or new nation about to be formed. Among these rights were virtually the inherent. rights of sovereignty, namely, the right to make war and declare peace, the right o citizenship to the extent that said citizen should be uniform throughout the Union and, regulated by Congress. Thus the right of naturalization was declared to be a right of the new nation, while all the people of the U.S. wercldeelared to be citizens thereof; and thus the citizens of anyone State in the Union were given “the right to enter every State whenever they pleased, ” I a in quote from Judge Taneys opinion in the red Scott case, “singly or in campanies, without pass or passport and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night, without molestation, unless they committed some violation of the law.” In fact, the Confederacy was changed into a great nation based upon the will of the whole people, and subject to such laws as would conserve the general weal. Ccrtain modes of procedure were also laid down for alterin or amending the constitution, but nowhere o we find provision made for the secession of a State from the national Confed eration; on the contrary, the idea of the framers evidently was, that as national unity was necessary to national safety and individual liberty, so every possible means was taken to preserve that unity for themselves and their posterity. The constitution declares that congress shall guaranty to every State a RFG. Now, suppose the majority in an one State decide in favor of a monarchica or despotic government, this is practi cally carrying out the right of secession, for such a government is incompatible with the Union of these States. In view of the formation of such a government, the minority in that State could appeal to the Congress of the U.S. for protection, and Congress would be compelled to intervene in order to vindicate the constitution of the U.S and the principle of universal suffrage on which it is founded. The duty devolving upon the U.S. of guarantying a republican government to the citizens of every State is one of the strongest evidences that the secession of a State was never contemplated by the fathers; but, on the contrary, the paramount duty of the Government was to preserve the liberty of the citizen, whether menaced by insurrection or despotism by the States or any confederation of them, or by any enemy from abroad. Indeed, the contingency which rendered intervention necessary to preserve the liberty of the people has occurred in our day, and was caused not by any despotic act of the central authority itself. but by the attempt of an oligarehy based on the right of man to hold property in man, through the perversion of the doctrine of State rights, to trample on the liberties of the people and extinguish them forever under the worst despotism in all the annals of history. The right of a State to secede, then, is found to be incompatible with the principle of universal suffrage, and the fathers seeing that it might, and no doubt would, endanger it, so worded the organic act as to decree a pe etual Union for the purpose of perpetuating li rty with it. Liberty and union, one and inseparable, was inscribed on their banner; and their sons during the late rebellion have held it aloft amid scenes of blood and carnage such as the world had never previously witnessed. After such a contest, and such a triumphant termination thereto, is it possible that any true patriot can for a moment doubt that the idea of the fathers transmitted to their cluldren became in them an article of political faith, so deeply engraven in their hearts and consciences that all the denioniacal powers of a despotism could not prevail to undermine or destroy it? It was this aith that sustained us through the late bloody struggle against the enemies of human rights. It is this faith in liberty and union that will always prove a wall of fire against any similar assaults in the future. But, Mr. Speaker, the enemies of this Union and this liberty are still insidiously at work. They still. talk of State rights and State sovereignty. But still, as before, with them State rights means the right of an oligarchy to deprive the people of their liberties, to say that a citizen of the U.S shall not be entitled to the privileges and immunities of the citizens of each State. This is the real animus of State rights; and secession means the determination to enforce the dogma outside the protecting aegis of the constitution, if they cannot do so within. We respect Home, because she protected her citizens in all the provinces of her vast dominion, even the most remote. Saul of Tarsus, though a Jew, appealed to her for protection from the lash, and his appeal was leard. We admire GreatBritain, because she also protects her citizens, and allows no State to make exceptive laws discriminating against them. But are we to deny to anAmerican citizen, one of the sovereign people of our free Government, that supreme right of protection which despotic Governments are so careful to accord to their subjects or their slaves? We do deny this an reme right to our citizens when we acknowledge that a State can secede from the Union and thus deprive its citizens of that support and protection, of those rights of sovereign citizens p, to confirm and reserve which the Union itself was formed, an formed for no other purpose. As regards the dogma of State suicide, so ably set forth by Mr. STEVENS and others, I cannot indorse it consistently with these views. A State may, by alteration or amendment of its organic act, place itself in a position that puts it without the pale of repnbhcan government. It still remains a State, however, subject to the constitution, and Congress is bound to see that the penalties, if not privileges, of that instrument are visited upon it. It thus remains a State for correction and amendment, in order that its citizens, who are at the same time citizens of the U.S., may be protected in their rights and privileges, at least that portion of them who continue true to their allegiance to the constitution and the Union. The constitution provides no way for the secession of a State from the Union, and no State having been taken out by the war it is plain that these States lately in rebellion have never been out, and are consequently still in the Union. The question whether it is in or cut, theoretically, is not so important as the question of restoration, and that is the question with which we are now called n on to deal. It isa most important question, ecuuse that upon it depends the restoration and perpetuation of the men and in approaching this question the 1st consideration should be the fitness of the late socailed seceded States to renew their allegiance to the Union. This fitness depends on, 1st, their loyalty to the constitution; 2ndly their loyalty to human rights, the rights and privileges of every citizen thereof. As regards loyalt to the Union, we should be satisfied that they will repudiate all their debts incurred in the prosecution of e late war; and on the other hand respect th debts contracted by us in putting down the rebellion. This would be such a practical exhibition of loyalty as to fully satisfy the Union man most doubtful as to the honesty of their future. True, this has virtuall been repudiated by the collapse of the robelion itself, but it remains a source of alarm to our loy l people and an engine of mischief with which demagogues may yet play to the injury of the country and its institutions. Mr. Speaker, when the States lately in rebellion shall send lo a] Representatives here, and when I see eviences of a desire on the part of the people to do justly and love mercy, and to walk as becomes members of a Chris tian republican commonweath, I shall rejoice to admit them to the full and perfect rights and privileges of which they have by their own oil been deprived. 1! cm some of the States latel in insurrection members have been clecte to this congress against whom not. even a suspicion of isloyalty can be breathed. On the contrary, the are noble and worthy men who have perile all, property, family connections, and life itself, in the cause of the Union. The States which they represent having fulfilled the conditions of admission understood by all to have been imposed upon them after the suppression of the rebellion, are entitled to representation by loyal men. I think in the cases of all of these States and of these loyal Representatives, the ComReconstruction should report. immediately and favorably. But at any rate, Mr. Speaker, the committee, havinga propersense of what is due to the intelligence, onor, and dignity of this House, should make a re. port. setting forth its reasons for the exclusion of these States and their loyal Representatives. In that case we could act. understandingly, and with all the lights on this subject before us. such a report would also tend to greatly relieve the suspense and anxiety under which the country labors respecting the great questions of reconstruction and pacification of the Union. I admit that on account of the factions conduct of the South, which, since the defeat of the great rebel armies in the field, has in many States been increasing rather than diminishing in virulence, a state of war virtually exists in the greater portion of that section; but in those States in which such a condition of things does not prevail, would it not be well to admit members by districts u a proper scrutiny of their antecedents? In cod, is not this a legal mode of admitting members to seats in this House? The States are represented in the Senate and the people in the HoRep, whose members are elected by districts. If a State is not or cannot be fully Represented, there is no reason that it should not be represented at all. Pennsylvania todny is not fully represented, having but 23 instead of 24 members on this nor, in consequence of a contest for the representation in the 16th district. Because that district is not represented, shall we disfranchise the entire state? So it is with some of these States lately in rebellion. Take the case of Tennessee. It has established a loyal government. It stands by the Union today as firmly and steadfastly as Maryland, Missouri, or Kentucky. Tennessee was admitted to a seat in the last national Union convention, and one of her sons was selected for the Vice Presidency, and I can see no reason why its loyal Representatives shall be excluded here. Shall we exclude the noble Maynard and others of his colleagues because one or more of the Representatives may present so disloyal a record as to prevent their admission? hese are certainly questions for the House to consider, and I respect fully urge the ComReconstruction to report upon them, so that we may take the necessary action in so important a matter and while upon the subject of the reconstruction and readmission of the States, permit me to say a few words regarding amendments to the constitution. I am opposed to all unnecessary and sweeping amendments of that in strument. They have a tendency to subvert insidiously our form of government, and to beget a want of reverence for the constitution, which will finally make it subject to the sport of every wind of doctrine and the object of demagogical assaults, the most dangerous not only to our liberty, but to the stability of the Gpvernment. I am especially opposed to the proposition to elect the President directly by the popular vote. such a proposition would tend to make the Government a consolidated democrac, which would us surely lapse into a consolidate despot ism under the rule of some great military chief tnin, or of some representative of sectional interest overriding State authority and State individuality. To reserve, as I have heretofore endeavored to s ow, State individuality in accordanee with national unity, was the great purpose and labor of the fathers. such an amendment, in my opinion, would sooner or later overthrow the 1st, and convert the 2nd into an unmitigated despotism. Before closing I am constrained to notice a statement made the other day by my colleague from the 4th district, [Mr. Roouns] so aptly designated yesterday by the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [M1. Scorrsw] as the " leaderof the Opposition, ” who, I regret, is not now in bil 1866. been seat, when delivering his very able speech upon the constitutional amendment, then before the House, which, unexplained, places our State in afalse position, which [believe he did notintend. He stated that NewJersey “ had sent no colored troops to the war.” It is true that NewJersey sent no organized colOred troops to the field, and for a reason well known to my friend and to the people of our State, but she did send many gallant negro soldiersnot a few of them from my own townwho were obliged to secure admission in organizations in Pennsylvania and RhdIsland. They fought well, and deserve the commendation of their State and country. Some of them found an honorable death, and today their bones bleach on the lains of Louisiana or lie buried in the bloo y trenches of Petersburg and Richmond. Mr. Speaker, NewJersey has never faltered, in any regard, in her obligations to the Government nor in her devotion to the Udion. Her sons, imbibin their patriotism upon the gory fields of the itevolution, sent forth men and money freely as her waters coursetothe ocean. The 79,511 soldiers and sailorsbesides man furnished to adjoining Stateswith the milions of her treasure expended in the war, furnish the most fitting reply to those who malign her patriotism or impugn her loyalty. Her sons ll on every field, the foremost in the fight, and were ever counted the bravest of the brave. She gave such men as Kearney, Bayard, the Taylors, Allen, Tucker, Rycrson, Zabriskei, Janeway, Hatch, Vredenburgh, Haines, and Arrowsmith, with 1,000s of other braves, counting them a fitting sacrifice to place upon the altar of liberty, and she cherishes their memories as a priceless heritage. Mr. Speaker, the late gigantic rebellion having been subdued and the armies thereof utterly routed and dispersed, it is but natural that our people should turn with beaming, yes and grate ul carts to the heroic Union soldiers and sail ors who have so uoblvperiled their all in defense, of their country. ever shall their great deeds be forgotten. Forever shall the memory of our llant dead he embalmed in the hearts of the iving. On the banks of many a southern river; under the spreadin foliage of many a southern forest tree; on the hillsides and in the valleys of the South are the tens of 1,000s of those grassy mounds which mark the last resting places of the noble Union dead. In many a northern home the widow and the orphan, the brother and the sister, the bereaved father and the disconsolate mother, await the footfall on the step without, that so often in the past had been the sweetest music to their ears, but await it in vain. Never more on this earth shall the form of that brave boy who proudly stepped from his fathers door to take his place in the Union column as it filed past, he clas edagain to that fathers heart. Never more shall a mothers kiss be pressed upon his brow as he sleeps in his little cot, in the humble chamberof the old homestead: "He has fought his last fight, he has won his last. o. No sound shall awake him to glory again.” But in the grateful heart of a redeemed nation should his memory and the memory of his glo rious (loath be enshrined as long as our mount ains lift their heads to the heavens and our rivers bear the waters of the continent to the sea. Let it be our chiefest care to see that the survivors of this momentous and appallin" strife be the objects of a nationssolicitude an a nations care. Failing in not only our duty but our gratitude tothese men. we failin one of the noblest attributes of a nationthat sovereign attribute of justice to those who have helped to save it from destruction and this justice includes the right of these men to equal bounties and equal pay as well as the right when incapacitated (by sickness or wounds from earning their daily bread to a comfortable maintenance from the GOvernment. Thus, fulfillingall our duties, protecting all who need protection, fostering the weak, and ving the strong every possible Opportunity to uild up the waste places of the land, let us no conduct our affairs as not only to attract to our nation the admiring eyes of the world at large, but todraw down upon it the approving smile of Almighty God and now, Mr. Speaker, unmindful of all consequences to ourselves, individually, but impressed with our responsibility to all mankind, casting our vision beyond the present and into the far distant future, leans endeavor to rees tablish this Governmentupon the enduring principle of “equal and exact justice to all men, ” and to lay its foundations deep and broad upon the eternal rock of liberty and a perpetual Union. So shall our beloved country, healed of her wounds, and disinthralled from the enchantment which has bound her for 100 years, spring into a new existence, to exceed in grandeur and greatness the wildest visions of the patriot fathers, and her banner, planted high upon the everlasting hills of truth and justice, and illuminated by the sun of freedom, shall become a beacon to the oppressed children of men who shall come hitherward and find a refuge and a herita e for themselves and their children, and their childrens children, till time shall be no more.