Mr. BROOMALL. Allow me at once to say that I have but 30 minutes, and will not yield any of my time to anybody. I say, Mr. Speaker, that it was not to be expected that those gentlemen would change their front upon short notice at this late day. But it is useless to waste arguments upon them in favor of this measure. Itwas also to be expected that the 6 John sonian new converts to Democracy would also oppose and vote against this measure; commencing with the Gentfrom NewYork, Mr. Rnrnoxn, w o, I believe, has the disease in the most virulent form, thence down to the Gentfrom Kentucky, [Mr. Sin rm] who preceded me on this question, and who has the mildest and most amiable type of the infection. upon them, too, arguments are useless. here must then be 39 votes against the measure, and I want there to be no more. I want every member of this House outside of those 39 to vote for it heartily and earn estly. I want every man to come to the con: clusion to which I have come, to vote, if not for that which he wants, for the best that he can get; to vote for the report of the committee if he can get it, just as O would have voted for something better; and if he cannot get the pleasure reported, then to vote for the next est. It is not what I wanted. How far short of it! But the necessity is urgent, and we must take what will obtain the votes of 2/3rds of both Houses of Congress, and the ratification of 3/4ths of the actual! States of this Union, those entitled to a voice upon the question. Now, what is this that is submitted for our action? I will consider the several propositions briefly; I am only sorry that I am lim ited to so short a space of time. We propose, firs togive power to the Government of the U.S. to protect its own citizens within the States, within its own jurisdiction. Who will deny the necessity of this? No one. The fact that all who will vote for the pending measure, or whose votes are asked for it, voted for this proposition in another shape. in the civil rights bill. shows that it will meet the favor of the House. it may be asked, why should we put a provision in the Constitution which is already contained in an act of congress? The Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. BINGHAM] may answer this question. 6 says the act is unconstitutional. Now, I have the highestrespect for his opinions as a lawyer, and for his integrity as a man, and while I differ from him upon the law, yet it is not with that certainty of being right that would justify me in refusing to place the power to enact the law unmistakably 1n the Constitution. On so vital a point I wish to make assurance doubly sure. I know that the unrepentant Democracy of this body voted against the civil rights bill upon the allegation that it was unconstitutional and I rather expect to see them exhibit their usual consistency by voting against making it constitutional upon the ground that it is so already. That measure, however, will meet with no opposition from those on whom the country depends for its safety, because if it is not necessary it is at least harmless. If we are already safe with the civil rights bill, it will do no harm to become the more effectually so, and to prevents. mere majority from repenlin the law and thus thwarting the will of the loylfi people. The 2nd proposition is, in short, to limit the representation of the several States as those States themselves shall limit suffrage. That measure has already received the sanction of all who can possibly be expected to vote for the proposition now before the House; because the JtResolution which passed this body by more than 2/3rds, and was defeated in the Senate, proposed to submit a similar change in the Constitution to the States for ratification. There is, therefore, little neces sitv for argument upon this point. at I will ask, why should not the representation of the States be limited as the States themselves limit suffrage? It is said that this is intended to prevent the southern States from having the representation now based upon their black and non-voting population. e terms of the proposed measure do not so limit it. But I will admit that mainly it will operate only on that population, and in the South and why not 7 f the negroes of the South are not to be counted as a political element in the government of the South in the States, why should they be counted as a political element in the government of the country in the Union? If they are not to be counted as against the southern people themselves, why should they be counted as against us? The fact is the negro of the South does vote, or rather he has his vote cast for him. He is voted by his white and hardly more loyal neighbor l would say brother only that I might be suspected of having some sly reference to the Democratic bleaching process which so confuses southern geneal ogies. If the blacks were permitted to vote instead of being voted, according to the doctrine of chances they would vote right half the times by mere guessing, be they ever so ignorant; and this is greatly more than can be said of their white neighbors for the last half dozen years. I will not say that this is more than can be said of the northern friends of those neighbors for the same period; but I will not risk my reputation for veracity by denying the proposition. The next proposition proposes to disfranchise until 1870 a certain portion of the southern people. Now, Iam sorry to see thato position to this feature of the measure comes from this side of the House. I regretted very much yesterday to hear the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. GARFIELD] and the Gentfrom Maine [Mr. BLAINE; oppose this feature of the JtResolution. am sure they have not well considered it. Let us see who it is we propose to deprive of suffrage until 1870, and to what extent. 1st, we do not propose to do what was done at the close of the Revolution, to disfrnnchise throughout all time to come the active and willing participants in the mise hief, but only until he year 1870, only for the next tburycars. Again, we do not propose to deprive all the voters of the South of the privilege of voting, but only the willing aiders and abettors. Look at the words of the proposition: All personswho voluntarily adhered to the late insurrection, living it aid and comfort. Now, who are they, and how many are there of that class? This is an important inquiry. It has been said broadly, with the air of sin cerity, and as if it were suse eptible of being demonstrated, that these people number 9 10ths of all the voters of the South. This is a grand mistake. The white population of the 11 States not now represented in the government was in 1865 million 600,000 in round numbers. Counting the voters as one 5th and that is about the ordinary ratio of voters to population we have one million 120,000 voters in those 11 States. Do we propose to disfranchise all these? Do we propose to disfranchise 9 10ths of them, as has been said here? By no means. According to the best estimates that can be made upon the subject and all are mere estimates, for we are without the means of obtaining accurate information there were altgether in the southern army about 800,000 men. How many of them were negroes I do not know. I know that the southern democrats at 1st entertained the notion of their northern friends, that the negro would not do for a soldier, but after several years of conscription and draft, both wings of the party beganto think he would. Toward the close of the rebellion the South commenced to muster the negro into the service. Suppose there were 50,000 of them it is true that is but a guess, there may have been twice as man or half as many this would leave 750,000 white men actually participating in the rebellion in the field. Now, let us hear in mind that the masses of the people in the South rendered aid and comfort to the rebellion only in the field. The great leaders of the Democracy rendered, it is true, aid and comfort in various other ways. But they constituted the few. I speak of the masses of the people only; and I repeat that they rendered) aid and comfort, wrthin the meaning of this provision, in the field only. We may therefore take 750,000 as the number of the individuals in the Smith who rendered aid and comfort to the enemy, not counting (because the number is so inconsideruble) the comparatively few though powerful leaders who rendered aid and comfort outside of the army. But, sir, we do not propose to disfranchise even these 750,000. Some of them were killed; how many we do not know. We do know that our own dead numbered nearly 300,000; and we have every reason to believe the confederacy suffered to the same extent that we did in that matter. Supposing 250,000 of the rebel army were lost, we have 500,000 actual voters in the South to be disfranchised by this measure if they come within the meaning of it. But do they come within the meanin of this provision? Why, sir, it does not embrace the unwilling conscripts; it does not embrace the men who were compelled to serve in the army. How many were there of these? I do not know; but I do klbw that after the 1st few months in the war of the rebellion the southern people refused to volunteer, and were required to be forced into the army. How many were there of these so forced? If I were allowed to guess I would say very nearly all. At least it would be fair to say 300,000 of these people belonged to the unwilling class who were forced into the army by rigid conse rition laws and the various contrivances of the end ing rebels. This will leave 200,000; and I say now it is utterly impossible, in my opinion, that the number of people in the South who can be operated upon by this provision should excee 200,000 if, indeed, it should reach the 1/2 of that number. Is this 9 10ths of the voters of the South? Why, it is about one in every 12. I am just reminded by my colleague [Mr. WILLIAMS] that the report of the committee shows us that these e even States furnished 42,000 soldiers to the Union Army. I suppose no one on this side the House will pretend that the pending measure will disfranchise them, whatever may be the desire on the other side. These men can take the “test oath.” Why can they not fill Federal offices in the South? It is looked upon, Mr. Speaker, as a mon strous piece oftyranuy that we should ask one out of 12 of the voters to stand aside for 4 years, to take a back seat, in the classic language of the White House, as a part expiation if the word is not itself a mockery used in that connection in part expiation of so enormous a crime. Let it be understood that we do not propose to disfranchise these people for State purposes. They are allowed their own local government, if the people of the States will permit them to vote. They will only not be allowed to control this Government, and they ought not to be allowed to control it. So far as we are concerned, we give them local government to the fullest extent to which we have it ourselves. It is known to every gentleman in this Hall that by far the largest portion of the business of government is done in the States. With respect to this largest portion, we leave it to these States to grant or refuse suffrage, without regard to the condition, the opinions, or the crimes of those claiming it. So much for that. Now, I know we have it from high authority that in all the southern conntrydhere are not enough of men who can take the oath prescribed by the law to hold the Federal offices. I know that is asserted, but I have no beliefin it whatever. I am satisfied that it is not true. I do not know why that assertion has been so boldly made unless for the purpose of enabling the Democrats of this body and the new converts to obtain a repeal of the “test oath, " and thereby to give seats in congress to some of their southern political frien s. I do not know why otherwise that notion was started, but that it is not true any reflecting man who will read the history of the last 5 years must see. We know what the truth is. It is this: the manner in which the present Administration has punished treason has made it not odious, but indeed the only popular institution of the South, so that if a man can take the oath he is afraid to let his neighbors know it. Treason has been made popular in the South, and loyalty odious. A man who has always been loyal is compelled by public opinion, forced upon and encouraged in the South by the Administration, compelled, I say, to deny his loyalty, and to simulate treason. Where are the 42,000 southern Union soldiers? The 3rd of these propositions is to present the payment of the rebel debt by the U.S or any of the rebel States, and to prevent compensation from ever being made for slaves. s there anybody here who has any objection to that? The former measure has received the sanction of the House heretofore by the requisite 2/3rds vote, and might be passed by as a thing settled upon. Is there any reason why we should guard against the payment of the rebel debt? It is strange that there should be necessity for it; but that there is such necessity no one here can doubt. A large portion of this debt is held abroad. The foreign allies of the Democratic rebellion contributed their money to aid the partv here; and if the Government of the U.S. does not provide irrevocably that they shall lose the investment, it will be false to every duty it owes to its citizens. But there is a considerable portion of this debt held by southern Democratic lenders; and it is to guard against the paying of this that the great necessity exists for putting this provision into the Constitution. It may be that the punishment of our country for its national sins is not yetcomplete. It may be that in the future an inse rutable Providence intends, for our full punishment, to restore to power for a time theIDemocratic party. What would be the result then? We know what would be the result. I want to put it out of the power of the Government to pay the rebel debt, that our friends on the other side of the House may not at some time be tempted by their old habit of obedience to the southern task master. These men who have voted upon that side of all questions can hardly be expected to withhold their votes wwhen their possible future leaders shall demand that the reel debt he paid as far as they are concerned. The only way to guard against that effectually is to put the provision itselfin the Constitution proibiiting any portion thereof from ever being pai. The latter branch of the 4th section prohibits the giving “of compensation for slaves. Now, a prominent Democratic member of this House, whose name I will notmention without his consent, yesterday told me that when the Democratic varty he did not sa “if, ” but “when " an he did not even blus to say it when the Democratic party came to be restored to power it would demand payment for emancipated slaves or the repudiation of lolnr national debt, and I confess I believed im. Can any man doubt what the position of the Democratic members of this bog will be with 58 added to their number mm the rebel States 58 Representatives of those whom they have for years obeyed and who will demand this of them?