Mr. MILLER addressed the House. [in the Appendix] Reconstruction. SPEECH OF HON. GEO. F. MILLER, OF PENNSYLVANIA, January 19, 1867. The House having under consideration the hill (H.R.No. 543) to provide for restoringtheStata lately in insurrection to their full political rights Mr. MILLER said: Mr. SpeakER: The bill under consideration is one of vast importance, and demands the serious consideration of this House. Elevel of the States of this Union having rebelled.to wit: Tennessee, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, NCarolina, SCarolina, Texas, Mississippi, and Virginia, claimed to have seceded and attempted to it. up a new government for themselves, to be called the “confederate States of America." after 4 years of terrible and bloody too flict, such as no nation ever before williesel one of the most gigantic rebellions ever inar urated was subdued by force of arms, and it ife of this Republic, though not a yet croff old, saved from ruin. o:struggle the monarchical Governments of Europe, sayefia. of Russia, were, as it seemed, desirous for our downfall, and some of them even boast through their public journals that a RFG was a failure. To looked back upon the ancient republics who flourished for a while, but finally crumbo into ruin, and on their foundations werereafed the most tyrannical Governments, withaiof hope that our fate would be no better.. thanks be to Him who rules the do nies of nations that we had at the headof." Republic a President in the person of Ao. ham Lincoln, who was destined for the go; work of saving the country from the gro designing demagogues. He was theo and I might add the idol of a freePo and around his administration the true." i. patriots of the country rallied. After triumphant reglection of Mr. Lincoln and surrender of the rebel forces, the next goal!".tion to solve was how to reconstruct theo. States lately in rebellion so as to immanent peace. But before this work".; entered upon, Mr. Lincoln was also o wit: on. night of the 14th of A oo by a foul wretch of the name of John Booth, and of the wounds inflicted di good next day at 22 minutes P.o'clock the a.m. This was a sad even o ral nation; his death was mourned by all o: people of the land; and the 9nly.o for this bereavement was the loud P }. the of AndrewJohnson, who, being plt same ticket with Mr. Lincoln, wase daf POTUS;; of Mr. Lincoln's death, after takingh. took oath administered by the Chief oani the presidential chair. It wastho, ops believed that he.follow in the foo of his illustrious predecessor.. e Immediatel : the organizatio" of the 39th Congress there wo o of the committee of 15, 9 on the House and 6 from the Senate, do". a ComReconstruction. This committee after several months' labor, having made a thorough investigation as to the status of the late rebellions States, made a report recommending certain amendments to the constitution of the U.S., to be called article 14th, which, after undergoing some modification, passed both Houses of Congress by more than a 2/3rd vote. Said article is divided into 5 sections, which are as follows: SEC:1. All persons born or naturalized in the U.S., and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the U.S and of the State in which they reside. No State shall makeor enforce which shall abridge the privileges or immu nities of citizens of the U.S.: nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, wi houtdue processof law, nor deny to any person laowns. its jurisdiction the equal protection of the SEC.2. g shall beapportioned among the ersse, evoeurnath States according to their respective num the whole number of pessonsin eagh State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choiceof electors fSotratPerse, rseipdreenstenatnadtive VEEP, of the U.S. in Congress, the executive and?os. officers of a State, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State o21 years of age, and citizens of the U.S., or in any way abridged, except for participation, in rebellion or othercrime, the basis of representation therein shall bereducedin the proportion which the number of soufcmhamleaclietizeeitnizsetnwsensthya lolnbeeayreatorsothf aegweihnosleucnhuSmtabteer. Sec. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative iindenCto, nogr rheoslsd, oarneyleocfftiocre, ocfivi President itaarnyd, huanvdienrgtphreev U.S. a, nooratuhndaseramaneym Sbteart of, Congress, or asan officer of the U.S., or as a member of any State Legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, toi.the Constitution of the U.S., shall have engagedin insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aidor comfortto the enemiesthereqf. But Congress may, by a vote of 2/3rds of each House, remove such disability.. The validity of the public debt of the U.S., authorized by law, including debts in eurred for payment of pensionsand bounties for servicesin suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned; But neither the U.S. ngoartiaonny, State shall assume or pay any debt or obli againsit in the ceur U.S., ine sruarrney ctciloanimo fror rebelllions obligations pa, antdiocnloaifmasnsyhsallal vbee;, hebludt ilalellgasul cahnd debts., Sec.5. That Congress shall have power to enforce, atrtoiclep, propriate legislation, the provisions of this This amendment having been submitted to the respective States for their action thereon Tennessee, one of the late socalled rebel States, promptly ratified the same through her Legislature, and was immediately after admitted to representation in Congress, thus leaving ten of the rebellious States unrepresented. I will now, Mr. Speaker, consider some of the features of the bill under consideration. The original was reported by Mr. STEVENs, from the JtCom on Reconstruction, on the 20th of April, 1866, embracing 2 sections, to which the same gentleman, on the 19th of December following presented an amendment embracing 8 sections; and on the 16th of January, i867, he presented to the House a modified amendment embracing 11 sections. On the same day Mr. AshLEY, of Ohio, chairman of the ComTerritories, presented what he denominated a mod ified amendment embracing 18 sections. The 1st section of the original bill provides that when the constitutional amendment shall have become part of the Constitution of the U.S., and any State lately in insurrection shall have ratified the same and shall have modified its constitution and laws in conformity therewith, the Sens&Reps of such State, if duly elected and qualified, may, after having taken the required oath, be admitted into Congress; and the 2nd section allows time to such States for payment of direct tax under the act of August 5, 1861. These sections presupposed of course thespeedy adoption of the constitutionalamend Inent. The amended bill is more stringent in its terms. Considerable fault is found with the 2nd section even by some of the Republicans, and especially by the ardent Gentfrom Wisconsin, [Mr. PAINE, Jupon the ground that it acknowledges as valid for merely muni cipal purposes the present State governments until legislative and executive officers shall be recognized. I cannot see in that section anything to bring forth so much opposition; it parts with no rights, nor does it acknowledge the validity of the governments formed in those States, except for the purpose therein contained. The 3rd, 4th, and 5th sections prescribe the mode of forming constitutions in the said ten States. The remaining sections direct, who shall vote in forming constitutions in those States. There may be some doubt with regard to Congress having the power to determine who shall exercise the elective franchise if they still retain their status as States, but in my opinion there is serious objection to what is contained in the 6th section, which declares that a certain class of persons engaged in the late rebellion have for eited their citizenship and renounced their allegiance to the U.S., and in order to be reinstated must 1st file their petitions for naturalization, and 5 years thereafter may on taking the prescribed oath be restored. I contend, Mr. Speaker, that no rebellious act on the part of the rebels could dissolve their allegiance to the Government of the U.S., and consequently they are amenable to its laws and can be tried and punished for their treason, and moreover they could be drafted and forced to serve in our armies notwithstanding they might claim to have seceded. In 3 Dallas, 153, Talbot vs. Janson, it is laid down by the SCOTUS.thateven if expatriation exists under our constitution and laws there must not only be a renunciation of citizenship of the U.S., but the actual removal for some lawful purpose; in the same case, on page 153, Justice atterson, who delivered the opinion of the Court, says: “It is an obvious principle that an act of illegality ceaxnpanterviaetriobne. coAntstrued into an act of emigration or that rate, treason and emigration or treason and expatriation would in certain cases be synonymous.” Hence it will be seen that no citizen, while remaining within the U.S., can absolve his allegiance, consequently this section could not be sustained; yet I have no doubt that laws may be passed depriving those engaged in the rebellion of certain political rights. The modified amendment makes some change as to the time of holding the election of delegates to meet in convention to form a constitution and the mode of appointing commissioners who shall direct the mode of selecting the election officers for the several districts; in other respects the main features are the same as that of the amended bill. The modified bill of Mr. AsHLEY differs considerably from that of my colleague, [Mr. STEvens, ] though, as I view it, it is more compli cated, and it will be more difficult to carry out its provisions. The 14th section provides that the constitutional convention, when assembled and organized, may divide the State of Texas into 2 States, and that said convention shall 1st cede a part of the territor to the U.S. } doubt very much whether this extraordinary power could be carried out by this mode of procedure, at least it would be a very doubtful undertaking, and such as I do not think Congress would feel justified in adopting.. Upon the whole I am of opinion that my colleague's [Mr. STEVENs] bill is preferable to that of the honorable Gentfrom Ohio if somewhat modified, which could be best accomplished by reference to a committee; and as the ComReconstruction is composed of members from each House it would be the appropriate committee to refer it to, and I am therefore in favor of such reference. The reconstruction of these States is a very grave question, and ought not be passed over too hastily. The learned Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. BINGHAM] attacks the bill of my colleague [Mr. STEVENs] with considerable severity. He says in his able speech: “The gentleman's [Mr. StroveNs's] bill, while, it conflicts with the constitutional amendment, totally ignores the 1st duty of the Congress of the U.S. to give the protection of law to life and property in the disorganized States.” He also says that — “The bill and the gentleman's [Mr. Steyr.Ns's hypothesiswould operate as a generaljail delivery.” I cannot see how the bill referred to “would operate as a general jail delivery.” If its provisions are in conformity with the Constitution and could be carried out, the rebels might find a jail without a delivery, and I am inclined to believe that the fears of the learned gentleman on that point are more imaginary than real; nor do I understand Mr. STEvens to be o: to the constitutional amendment, for I understood him to say when I gave notice that at the proper time I would offer the following section to the bill, to wit: Abife:, That no such State shall be admitted to a representation in Congressuntil it also ratifies the amendment to the Constitution of the U.S. which has been proposed by 2/3rds of both Houses of the 39th Congress o: submitted to long the respective States for ratifica that he had no objection to this section being added. Much has been said, Mr. Speaker, by members on this floor as to the statio of thes, late rebellious States; some have contended that they are to be treated as conquered prov inces, and of course be subject to the will of the conqueror. Of this, which I deem a dangerous doctrine, I had occasion to remar in a speech delivered in this Hall on the 21st of April last, that by assuming that position we might make ourselves liable for at least so much of the rebel debt as is held bona fide by outside parties, and it is said that about 500 millions of the bonds are held by persons in Europe. By the law of nations the conqueror of a province is entitled to the public domain and is bound to pay its debts previously contracted. As this is such a universal rule it does not require authorities to substantiate it; I will, however, cite one, which will be found in Wheaton's Elementary International Law, 3rd edition, page 68, in which it is laid down: “As to public debts, whether due to or from the revolutionized State, a mere change in government the form of or in the person of the ruler does not affect their obligation. The essential form of the State, that which constitutes it community, an independent remains the same; its accidental form only is changed. The debtsbeing contracted in the name of the State, by its authorized agents, for its public use, the nation continues liable to them, notwithstanding the change in its internal constitution. The new government succeeds to the fiscal rights and is bound to fulfill the fiscal obligations of the former government. It becomesentitled to the public domain and other property of the State, and is bound to pay its debts previously contracted.” Now, sir, we cannot afford to speculate upon such a theory, nor is there any occasion for assuming such a dangerous position. On this point I maintain the same views that I expressed during the 1st session of this Congress, to wit: that no act on the part of the rebels could take a State out of the Union; that their attempt to do so was frustrated by the force of arms, and that they still remained a part and parcel of the U.S.; and that all their acts and decrees, so far as regards the U.S., were an absolute nullity. I think I am safe in saying that there are but few who maintain the doctrine that the rebel States are in the position of conquered provinces. There are others who contend that they lost their status as States and are to be treated as Territories, and are again to be admit; ted as if they never had been States. This, I think, is a mistake, for I do not well see how the rebellion could bring about this funda mental change. It is true that they may have, by their acts, in effect abrogated their corporate powers, or, in other words, suspended the same and thus placed themselves for a time without a protective State government, in which case that injunction of the Constitution of the U.S. must be invoked, which in the 4th section of the 4th article thereof declares that — “The U.S shall guaranty to every State in this Union a RFG.” And these very words of the Constitution plainly indicate that when a State is once admitted into this Union it must remain a State, and that a majority therein cannot change its government from that of a republican form. The minority, let it be ever so small, is entitled to the protection of the U.S., and consequently it is a great mistake to suppose that they forfeit their rights because a majority in a State may rebel. In this view I am sustained by an able writer on the laws of nations; for in Vattefs Law of Nations, page 6, it is laid down that — “If a nation is obliged to preserve, itself, it is less obliged carefully no to preserve all its members. The nation owes this to itself, since the loss even of one of its membersweakens it and is injurious to preservation. its It owes this also to the members in particular, in consequenceof the voffy act of association; for those who compose a nation are united for their defense and common advantage; and no one can justly be deprived of tages this union and the advan he expects to derive from it while he on his side fulfills the conditions.” And the same author adds that — “The body of a nation cannot then abandon a province, a town, or even a single individual, who is a part of it, unless compelled to it by necessity, or indispensibly obliged to it by the stringent reasons founded on the public safety.” In all our congressional proceedings we have denominated them as States, and I do not see, Mr. Speaker, what is to be gained by the terri torial doctrine in regard to those States, even if it was tenable, for we have the full power to so reconstruct them as to protect the loyal people resident therein, and that there are such no one doubts. But recently 4 million human beings who were held in abject slavery have been emancipated, who are said to be loyal to the Government, and it is our duty to see that they are properly protected. But suppose we should undertake to establish the doctrine that the late rebel States, except Tennessee, are to be considered as Territories: what better posi;tion would we be placed in? For when they would present a constitution framed to meet the approval of Congress they would be admitted, and in fact to accomplish that they might readily agree to almost any terms in order to obtain admission and representation, and, this having been accomplished, I would ask, sir, what could prevent them from calling a convention and changing their constitution in any way they may see fit, provided it is not incompatible with that of the U.S., and I might also ask what protection would the loyal people in those States then have? But it is said the civil laws in those States are not sufficient to afford ample protection; I would say then, sir, extend the laws of the U.S. over those States in such a manner as to give proper protection; and if that is not sufficient then suspend the writ of habeascorpus and let them be governed by martial law until they shall have learned to respect the civil law. But I may be asked if the adoption of a proper constitution in those States is not a sufficient guarantee against future innovations, what is? My response is the adoption of the constitutional amendment, which I believe to be the bulwark of our liberty and a complete barrier against any other rebellion. And now, sir, permit me for a few minutes to examine the features of that amendment. The 1st section thereof makes all persons born or naturalized in the U.S and subject to the jurisdiction thereof citizens, and also prohibits any State from making or enforcing any law which shall abridge the rights of citizens, &c. This is in effect the civil rights bill and affording to all adequate protection, which is so just that I cannot see how any objection can be seriously interposed, unless it is by those whose consciences have been seared with the rebel doctrine that “a negro has no rights which a white man is bound to respect.” This section however will relieve those persons who entertain that doctrine. The 2nd section provides that if any male citizens of the U.S., being 21 years of age, shall be deprived of the right of voting, except for participation in the rebellion, representation shall be reduced in proortion. This applies to all the States in the nion, but may more materially affect the late slave States. Under the Constitution of the U.S., adopted by the Convention on the 17th day of September, 1787, and ratified by the States in 1789, in the representation the whole number of free persons, including those bound for service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, 3/5ths of all others were counted, and now as slavery is abolished the other 2/5ths would be counted, thus giving the late slave States a representation for all the colored men without extending to them the elective franchise, which would be then about 37 members of Congress for an unvoting population, while on the other hand the other States are confined to the voters, consequently making, in effect, the vote of one white man in the South equal to about 3 in the North. It must be borne in mind that this amendment is intended for all the States of the Union, and leaves each to decide for itself as to negro suffrage; but if the black man is deprived of that right he is not to be counted in the representation. Is not this just? The 3rd section prohibits any person from being a Senator or Representative. in congress, or elector of President and VEEP, and from holding any office, civil or military, under the U.S or any State, who had previously taken an oath as member of Congress or as an officer of the U.S or of any State to support the Constitution of the U.S and afterward engaged in the rebellion; with a proviso that Congress may, by a vote of 2/3rds of each House, remove this disability. This, I presume, is the main feature to which the leading rebels object, as they seem extremely anxious to be in a position to make and administer laws for the loyal people of the country. They ought to be thank ful that they are permitted to enjoy the ben efits of the Government they exerted themselves to overthrow. This section only puts them upon their good behavior, and if any future Congress sees evidence of true repentance and return to loyalty they may, by a 2/3rds vote, remove the barrier. But in the mean time these persons must understand that in Government affairs they must take a back Seat. The 4th section affirms the validity of the debt of the U.S., including debts in curred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, and declares that neither the U.S. nor any State shall asssume or pay any obligation against the U.S or any claims for the loss or emancipation of any slaves, but that all such obligations shall be illegal and void. This is a very important section to the tax payers of the country. As far as I have been able to ascertain the rebel debt, including the $500,000,000 held in Europe, is not less than $2,500,000,000; besides this the slaveholders assert that they will make claim for their emancipated slaves, which are in number say 4 millions. Now, counting these at $300 each, we would have $1, 200,000,000 more, and this being added to the rebel debt, would make $3, 700,000,000. Now, supposing that the constitutional amendment should be abandoned, how would we stand with regard to this enormous claim? The insurrectionary States being restored to representation their representatives, togethe with their northern sympathizers, would no doubt favor the assumption of the same b, the U.S., an attempt to do who might succeed with the influence thatmiff. be brought to bear on some future Congos both at home and from abroad, for iits no supposable that foreigners owning such alarn amount as $500,000,000 of the rebel dio would be passive on such an occasion, and especially if we should be so unfortunate a to elect a southern man for President. If the enormous sum should be assumed and added to our own debt what would become of us: When and how could it be paid? Wouldi, not reduce the nation to bankruptcy oar least tax the people beyond endurance? The the people would see the importance of the policy of the majority of the presentCongres. but how can this catastrophe be averted: My answer again is by the adoption of the consttutional amendment, and then to change tithers will be required 2/3rds of bothHouses of Congress and 3/4ths of theStates which it is not likely can ever be obtained. Thenmuf the country feel safe, having a sure guaranted But it is said that none of the ten insurotionary States will ratify it; then let them do without representation; we did withouttheir help in our struggle to maintain our nationality, and now as that struggle is over we can still get along without them; theyleft, these Halls with their own accord to inaugurate a rebellion and they shall not returnwithout to approval of Congress. This amendment is such a guarantee as we have a right to de mand, and I assert, Mr. Speaker, thatsolo as I am honored with a seat on this floor I will never vote for the admission of Representatives from those States until the consition amendment is 1st ratified, in which they mus participate. The next and last section gives poo." Congress to enforce by appropriate legislao the provisions of this article. President johnson seems veryanxious in these insurrectionary States to have represention in Congress without any precedent totion whatever, notwithstanding the overwoing verdict of the loyal people as expo. through the ballot box at the recentelee" In his last annual message he says: “Ten States, more than one4th tle of of number, remain without representatin. 50 members in the HoRep of 20 members of the Senatoaro. by their own consent, not by failure of: !. o refusai of Congress to accept their “ ials.” And he talks about taxation witho' o sentation, and also says that to i. modified their laws as to repudiate debt. lowed Now, sir, why ought those Statesbe: re representatives in Congress to take Po ld vote construction? Is it likely that tho. for any restriction? And who.o judge or juryman sitting in the to otthese cause? And yet the President: o any men shall be admitted at once.". guarantee whatever for future.so i. the inauguration of another reblion, n provo us that if they should afte o ask disloyal they may be expelled; but how could that the com: he accomplished? 5 the constitution requires the concurrence o sentativo to expel a member, and if such o f were admitted it is not probable that to vote for their own expulsion, and: o against such procedure, as a disloyal member would be pool foongreo, his seat and thus thwart the : 0. As to the changing of the law. then alone as no security, for how oevenmo" to change back again and make the obnoxious than they were o:Ourproco We are told, Mr. Speaker. thoseStaoings, without representation passe" are invalid; if that is correet then. to suppress the rebellion, and "also the large debt of $3,000,000,000 incurred to defray the cxpenses are null and void. Will any tend man con: that the laws so enacted and debt created are of no effect? Surely no loyal man will promulgate such doctrine. But if it was necessary for those States to participate, then President Johnson is not a legal President, for when he was elected those States were not allowed representation nor permitted to take part in the election of a President and VEEP, and therefore if the present Congress is an illegal body it follows as a corollary that he is an illegal President. it is not necessary, however, Mr. Speaker, to spend time on such an absurd proposition, and I may be permitted to say here that I am sorry that the POTUS in his journey to the city of Chicago and back made use of such language as is attributed to him in his speeches. It would have been bet ter, far batter, for him and the country if he had been more guarded in his expressions. Mr. Speaker, the Republican members of this house are anxious for the restoration of the ten States lately in rebellion, and I might add as much so as the President is, with this difference, that he is in favor of admitting them without terms, and Congress, on the other hand, requires substantial security for the preservaation of the country. Had the life of the lamented Lincoln been spared, or had his successor, President Johnson,;.o:: t cooperatedwith Congress, reconstruction would erethis have been consummated and the States represented in the councils of the nation; but, as it is, Congress has this arduous duty to to." with the opposition of the President, acked by his mighty patronage, which has been usedagainst the party that elevated him to the Vice Presidency, by which, on the death of Mr. Lincoln, he was enabled to step into the presidential chair. Mr. Speaker, counting the insurrectionary States, we have 36, and if it requires 3/4ths of them to ratify the amendment 27 States will be quired. The 5th article of re the Constitution of the U.S. prescribes that — " the congressw, henever 2/3rds of shalldeem both Houses it necessary, shall propose amendments to thisConstitution, or, on the application of the Legislatures of 2/3rds of the several States, shall call a conventionfor sproposingamendments, which, in eithercase, shallbe valid, to all intents and purposes 8 part of this C constitution, when oby the Legislatures of 3/4ths of the severai States, or y Conventions in 3/4ths thereof, as the one of theothermode of ratification may be proposed by e Congress.” Of the 26 States all except Delaware, Kentucky, and Maryland have elected Republican Legislatures, who were pledged for the ratification of the amendment; and those of them that have not already ratified it will "o so shortly. But in addition to these 23 States 4 more will be required provided 3/4ths of the whole number are Sessary. It is, however, contended by some able lawyers on this floor that it is y not neces. to include these ten unrepresented States; o if thato is tenable, then but 3/4ths of the 26 States would be re ‘ lood, to: wit, 20, and upon that hypothesis pledged 3 more States than are sufficient to accomplish this desirable object. I stated on a former occasion in this Hall. toing slavery the constitutional amendment abol it is a question too important to . upon, as there is no telling what the court of the U.S., as now in re a one: be 'constituted, may decide the status of these ten insurrec. fill so. i and these apprehensions are io. in the recent decision of that if not oe Milli an case—a decision which, Obn ready, will, in my opinion, be more olous than that of the “Dred Scott.” ke. 9tunately, our courts of error do io.W. not the progress of the age, for, oil. ooking forward and framing theirances Consonant to the times and circum in which we live, they are too apt to turn their attention back in search of some stale precedents of the dark ages. I do not, Mr. Speaker, on this occasion intend to the discuss merits of the decision in the Milligan case; but trust that that high judicial tribunal may realize the importance of in rear of the other branch neost koefepoiunrg to Government. The honorable Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. BINGHAM] says: “Let the amendment be ratified by 3/4ths of the organized, and represented States, and it is in vain that conspirators and aiders of rebellion will appeal, to the Supreme Court to the righteous and just provisions relieve them from of people.” the decreeof the The same gentleman in “If, his speech says also: therefore, gentlemen are at all apprehensive. of any wrongful intervention of the SupremeCourt in this behalf, sweepaway at oncetheir appellate juris diction in all cases, and leave the {{. i without even a color or appearance of authority for their wrongful intervention.” It is in vain, Mr. Speaker, for us to speculate with regard to what “conspirators and aiders of rebellion” will do, for they will stop at nothing that has a tendency to thwart the action of Congress or oppose the rights of the loyal people of the country; and suppose we. if “sweep away the appellate jurisdic diction” of Supreme 8. how soon would it be restored in case the Opposition should obtain a majority, or in case it should be deemed by any future Congress that it was inexpedient to take away such jurisdiction? And how would we then stand? Mr. Speaker, we must look at these grave questions coolly and with deliberation, and not be too sanguine with regard to ries; untried theo and as we are now vested with power to place our Government upon a sure basis beyond cavil it is our duty to do so, and not to admit to representation in Congress any of these ten late insurrectionary States that persist in the rejection of the constitutional amendment. I repeat, sir; that it is not the desire of the great Republican party to retard the restoration of those ten States to full political rights, but on the contrary they are anxious for a speedy adjustment, in order to secure adequate protection to all classes and conditions of men residing therein, and at the same time afford ample security to the U.S. Government against any future refractory course that might be pursued on the part of those States. The delay about which we hear so much complaint from a certain quarter is not the fault of Congress, but owing to the pertinacity of leading politicians who partici. ated in the inauguration of the late rebellion. Sir, they must and will be taught to understand that they are not to dictate as to the plan of reconstruction. That work must be left in the hands of loyal men, who, in the dark hour of our struggle to maintain national existence, rallied around the old flag, and those States must accept the terms that Congress propose or remain without representation, and in the mean time be governed in such a way as may render proper protection to the inhabitants thereof. Mr. Speaker, I will say to the people of those States that they need not be deluded with the idea that they will get back under what is denominated President Johnson's policy, or under any terms more favorable than those dictated by Congress, and their abuse of this body through certain southern journals will not hasten their aggrandizement; and again, it is time that they should understand that rebels, even whitewashed with pardons, are not to be intrusted with the affairs of the Government, and so far as this and the next Congress are concerned I think I am safe, in saying that they will find that determination carried out. And now, sir, it devolves upon us to stand firm upon these great questions, and I trust there wo be no Republican member found to falter. The course we laid down at the 1st session of this Congress was submitted to the people, who were looking upon our actions with an anxious eye, and notwithstanding the fact that all the executive patronage was brought to bear in order to defeat Republican members we were nobly sustained by a grateful and patriotic people and returned here to complete the great work submitted to us; and I trust our constituents may not be disappointed, and that, through the guidance of. who has signally blessed our arms and dispelled the dark clouds of treason that were hanging over our beloved country, we may be enabled to so reconstruct the late rebellious States as to in sure peace, security, and stability for generations to come, so that this Republic may never be distracted by another rebellion. And now, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I have to say that the late rebellion caused the sacri fice of too many noble men who fell in defense of the Union, and caused too many widows and orphans, beside the large expenditure of money, to allow rebels to resume seats in the councils of the nation or permit the States lately in insurrection to assume their former position in the Union without an adequate guarantee. Had those ten States manifested the same disposition as Tennessee they might now be in a very different position; but as it is, I see no hurry in granting them representation until we have more evidence of returned loyalty and see a disposition manifested to adopt the amendment; and this is the sentiment of the loyal people of the country, to which we as their Representatives must adhere, and by doing so we will foster our free institutions and make manifest to the world that a RFG is not a failure, and it will then be a light for the oppressed nations of the earth to follow.