Mr. HOWE. Mr. President, I have been taken a little by surprise at the reception this resolution has met with. I thought it was a very harmless thing. I wish the Clerk would send it to me. It relates to the use of a certain public building in this city, in this District over which we have the exclusive right of legislation; a building that belongs to the government of the U.S., and is within the control of Congress; and the only disposition it proposes to make of that building in this District is this: “said citizens are hereby authorized, whenever permitted so to do by The SPEAKER of this House or the President of the Senate, to use and occupy said building.” For what? “ For any proper and lawful purpose, and particularly in reference to the liberation of Ireland.” Upon what clause in this resolution is the indictment against it founded? Is it wrong to permit a public building to be used for holding public meetings? I take it not. Public buildings have been too often and too long appropriated to such uses to be now stigmatize for the same here or elsewhere. Is it founded upon the fact that these meetings are to be held for any proper and lawful purpose? I take it not. If public meetings can be held at all, most assuredly they can be held for proor and lawful purposes. But is it because they . are to be held “in reference to the liberation of Ireland?" Is that the gist of the charge made against the reSolution'I Sir. I put the question to you and the Senate, is it improper or unlawful to hold a public meeting in a public buildingin the DistCol in reference to the liberation of Ireland? Since when was it that it became improper in this country to consider the question of freedom in Ireland or elsewhere? I thought there was one country in the world wherein the question of freedom might be fearlessly discussed and debated, and I did fondly think that one country was the one over which still hang the stars and the stripes, and I continue to cherish that belief. Sir, is the freedom of Ireland so odious a thing that it may not properly be considered by American citizens, either to the manor born or born abroad? I know not myself why the freedom of Ireland should be mom odious than the freedom of any other country. I know not myself what license an American citizen has to call freedom anywhere odious. But if the freedom ofIreland were not a desirable thing in itself, are we bound by any law of right, or of courtes even, to be so circumspectin reference tow at we shall discuss here touching the real or the supposed interests of GreatBritain as the Senfrom Maryland PiMr. Jonxsos] seems to argue? Sir. those our black years when 6 millions of the Amer ican people stood in arms to overthrow the liberties of this country, was England so very circumspect as to what she should do and as to what she should say touching that eat controversy ‘I Did it happen to you, sir, didrit ha pen to any Senator on this floor, to hear of p any public building within the realm of GreatBritain which was not open to the discussion of every question atfectin the interests of that great rebellion with which we had to deal? Was there an public building subject to the control of the Government of ngland in which every sentiment calculated to cheer on that rebellion was not openly applauded to the echo? If there was such a building, I never heard of it. Mr. President, it was said by the Senfrom Maryland in the outset that by the discussion of such simple propositions as this before the Senate we were in danger of weakening the attachment of the American people to their own laws, that we are especially in danger of putting in peril what are known as the neutrality laws of this count, and the Senfrom Maryland indulged himself in eulogy upon the achievements o the Administration in recently enforcin those laws. Mr. President, let me say a igew words on that point. The Administration did enforce those laws. The Administration is not to be arraigned or condemned for the execution of any law upon your statute book. For the simple work of executing your laws or enforcing them, this Administration and all Administrations are to be commended and not condemned. But, Mr. President, it does happen that the 2 parties to that controversy agree in one respect. that the 2 parties interested in the enfbrcement of those neutrality laws agree in 2 particulars. GreatBritain says, by the mouths of her leading organs, that the Administration did more than could have been expected of it. The Administration was not bound to do more than to enforce the law of neutrality. That could naturally and reasonably have been expected of it. the London Times says that the administration did more than could have been expected of it; and while they our out upon the Administration that praise, the Fenians say that the Administration did a great deal more than they expected of it or had any reason to expect. Upon that point they are agreed, and upon that point I am inclined to think, from wiliat I know that both are right. Let me ca I your attention to a very few in cidents connected with that short struggle. I remember that on the 28th day of May it was Wednesday, I believe a telegraphic dispatch from Cleveland announced that 2 companies, I think I am not sure about the force 2 companies of Fenians left the city of (lleve land, in the State of Ohio, armed. That was on the 28th day of May. The country had been rife with rumors that a raid was contemplated on Canada; but the Government made no demonstration to check it. If a force did leave Cleveland for the purpose of invading Canada, that was a violation of our neutralit laws. The Government was iotified through the public dispatches of that fa. t, but the government did not lift a finger to interfere with it. On the 1st of June the telegraph announced from Buffalo that large parties of Fenians armed were in that city, and that it was ru mored an attack was to be made upon Canada that night. But the Government did not move to interfere with it. On the 2d of June the telegraph announced that a party of Fenians had invaded our neighboring rovince, but so far as I learn the Government was quiet; at all events, the Government never uttered a word of caution or of admonition against these dem onstrations. At the same time the telegraph informed the Government from every quarter of the Union that the Fenians were hurrying armed to the assault, but no word of admonition was addressed to them; the Government never said to them, “ You must stand back.” An attack was made; I think on the 2d of June some fighting occurred; I forget the precise dates; but on the 2d or 3d ofJune we were told that General Meade was proceeding to the frontier and that the steamer Michigan was taking up its position in the Niagara river, and presently we egan to learn that detachments of Fenians going to reenforce their brethren on the other side of the river were bein ar rested; but we heard no word of admonition from the Government itself, the central power. The controversy went on, and small etach ments, amounting, perhaps, to 2 or 3,000 men, havm gone across the river, the military force of the Government was deployed upon the boundary line, and all re'en orcements were cut off. What then? Of course the small force that had crossed was crushed and dispersed at once. What then? They returned. What then? Your ne'wspa pers and your telegraphs were busy detailing to you the incidents of that short and inconsiderable struggle; but it was not until the 7th of June, days after every vestige of the raid was crushed out, that the POTUS issued his proclamation, telling the Fenians that they must keep the peace and obey the neutrality laws. It seems to me that that was a great deal too late to benefit either the Fenians or GreatBritain. Our Army and our Navy had intercepted all re'euforcements 4 days before that; the small detachment thathad gone into Canada were utterly crushed; 4 days before that Fenianism was a mere phantasy' and I cannot, for m life, conceive what good the roclamation di either to Can ada, to Great ritain, or to the Fenians. In that sense the London Times might well say that the Government of the U.S. had done more than could have been excted of it, because while it had uttered no a monition to warn the Fenians from moving on Canada, it had so employed the military force of the country as that Fenianism must be utterly harmless in Canada; and in that point of view the Fenians themselves may be entirely war ranted in saying that the government did a at deal more than they expected, because it did not only all it was required to do by law, but did it under such circumstances as to at them at disadvantage, while it gave no possible advantage to their opponents. Mr. President, one word more. As to the merits of the Fenian movement I have only this to sa: freedom must be as dear a thin in Irelan as in America or elsewhere Irelan dislikes her union with GreatBritain: am not here to defend or to attack it; but I will say that if Ireland had a representation in the British Parliament proportionate to her population as our rebels had more than the representation which their population entitled them to in the Congress of the Republic, then I should think the effort of Ireland to break up that union was as unjustifiable as was the effort of our rebel States; but she has not that proortionate representation; to the extent that is enied, no man who loves equity and justice and fair dealing can fail to sympathize with Ireland and all who struggle for it. And whatever you may say of the Irish character, I want to say here in my place that I know of no people on God's earth who have given higher evidence of love of country than these very Fenians who, after having nbjured their native country as a place of residence because of the oppressions by which they were overborne there, still elin to it, their affections still cluster about it, and you saw them here, 3,000 miles from the land of their birth, mustering for it, ready to do and to dare and to die for that country from which op ression drove them years ago. Ifyou can fin in the history of the present experience of the world a higher evidence of patriotic love than that, produce it; but till you do find it, give credit to the Irish character for one merit at least that of patriotism.