Mr. BANKS. Mr. Speaker, the measure before the House presents a basis upon which it is proposed the insurgent States shall be restored to the Union. It is, therefore, the most important question which can be presented to the House or to the country. It deserves the most mature consideration. I should have been glad if a more general and thorough discussion of the subject could have been had on these particular measures, but the House has decided otherwise. I desire to make a few suggestions as briefly as possible, chiefly in reference to what lins been said by other gentlemen who have addressed the House. It is my belief that reorganization of governments in the insurgent States can be secured only by measures which will work a change in the basis of political society. I do not think this can be done by theoretical constitutional or statutory provisions. Anything that leaves the basis of political society in the southern States untouched leaves the enemy in condition to renew the war at his pleasure, and gives him absolute power to destroy the government whenever he chooses. Therefore, sir, no proposition meets my entire approval that does not propose a radical change in the basis of political society in these States; but I do not, of course, expect the House to adopt my opinions, nor do I ask that they shall e embodied in these propositions which may be adopted. there are 2 methods by which the change I propose can be made: one by extending the elective franchise to the negro; the other by restrictions upon the political power of those heretofore invested with the elective franchise, is part of whom are loyal and a part of whom are disloyal; a part of whom are friends and a part of whom are enemies. I have no doubt that the Government of the U.S. has full power to extend the elective franchise to the colored population of the insurgent States. I mean authority; I said power. I have no doubt that the Government of the U.S. has authority to do this under the Constitution; but I do not think they have the power. The distinction I make between authority and power is this: we have, in the nature of our Government, the right to do it; but the public opinion of the country is such at this precise moment as to make it impossiblewe should do it. It was therefore most wise on the part of the ComReconstruction to waive this matter in deference to public opinion. The situation of opinion in these States compels us to look to other means to protect the Government against the eiiem. "he other has reference, of course, to the disfranchi sement of those who are or may be considered public enemies. In regard to that section of the amendment relating to representation, I have this to say: while it is entirely equitable, and does not admit of question on that score from any quarter whatever, yet I do not think it will exert any controlling influence upon the political character of those States. It reduces to representation of the insurgent States some 15 members. The reduction is not of paramount importance whether they have more or less members, however loyal they might be. It is butjust that they should be restricted to a fair share of representative power. But they do not seek to govern by opinion. They do not rely on ideas for success. They govern by force. Their philosophy is force. Their traditionisforce. bethertheybefewormany, they will have power whenever they are restored here. While, therefore, sir, I accord cheerfully with the proposition, it does not meet the emergency presented at this time. The 3rd proposition is one which disfranchise s the enemies of the country. I approve that. I think it right in principle. I think it necessary at this time. If I had any opinion to express I should say to the gentlemen of the House that it is impossible to organize a government in the insurgent States and have the enemies of the country in possession of political power in whole or in part, in the local governments or in representation here. It does not change the result, in my opinion, if you couple with this the franchise of the negro. Certainly it will be much better, if rebels are allowed to vote. that the privilege should be extended to the colored people. I propose, so far as I am concerned, to lose no opportunity to impress upon the country the necessity for the extension of suffrage to the colored men in the best and most effective way possible. But that question is not now presented. Now, sir, what are the objections to the disfranchisement of the enemies of the country? and in s caking of them I mean those who organize and sustained rebellion against the Government of the U.S. forhve years; who contemplated it for 30 years; who are ready now, not as friends, but as enemies of the Government, to accept whatever share of power may be accorded to them in a Government where the people have the entire power to do that which seems to them right an just. An enemy to the Government, a man who avows himself an enemy of its policy and measures, who has made war against the Government, would not seem to have any absolute right to share political power equally with other men who have never been otherwise than friends of the Government. That proposition would seem to recommend itself to the judgment of every man. But it is said that there are certain practical difficulties in this matter which ought to control our judgment. It was intimated the other day that there had been some understanding when the enemies of the country laid down theirarms that they were to return to power; an implication, if not:.n agreement, that we are to restore them to their full status as citizens of the U.S., with local and Representative power. I Now, sir, I do not agree to that at all. I think they had the most distinct information possible given from every Dept of the Government, by all its officers under all circumsta ces, that they were not to claim or receive political recognition or the recognition of political power. hey surrendered because, as they say, they were beaten. They could not or did not choose to continue the fight any longer, and they laid down their arms, as I believe, ivith the conviction that it was impossible for them to prosecute the war any further. The measures adopted by the Government at the time of the surrender show exactly its determination which the enemy could not misunderstan. General Johnston of the rebel army proposed a treaty with the army of the Union in which it was stipulated that the rebels would lay down their arms on condition that the rebel State governments should be recognized, the Supreme Court decidin where conflicting governments existed, and tint the people should be guarantied their political rights and franchises as well as the rights of person and property. This was summarily rejected by the government. President Lincoln, when applied to by GenlGrant for instructions, sent a dispatch written by his own hand, with the approval of President Johnsou, directing GenlGrant to have no communication with Generul Lee unless for the capitulution of his army, and not to decide, discuss, or confer upon any political question. certainly those officers who treated with GenlGrant could not have had any expectation of that kind. The terms of surrender to GenlGrant were that the rebels were to return to their homes, not to be disturbed so long as they observed their parole and the laws in force where they resided. The AttyGen decided that they had no right to return to tho, placcswhere they resided before the war within the loyal States, and that to wear the rebel uniform was a violation of their parole and a fresh act of rebellion. President Lincoln, as late as March, 1865. in a proclamation in which he referred to a bill passed by both Houses of Congress, de clared that while he did not assent to all its provisions, he should be governed by its conditions in any settlement that he should undertake with the insurgent States. One of these conditions was that the mass of rebel leaders, civil and military, were to be forever excluded from political power. President Johnson, in his reclamation of May 29, 1865, which, I thin I may say here, what I have said elsewhere at al times, presents a plan of settlement that would be entirely satisfactory to the country, and enable us to reorganize these governments immediately without detriment or danger President Johnson, in his proclamation of amnesty of the 29th of May, 1865, de clares that all persons in military or naval custody, as prisoners of war, including, of course, all the paroled officers and soldiers of the rebel army, were excepted from the act of amnesty and pardon. The proclamation enn merates 13 or 14 distinct classes of rebels, embracing nearly all the influential people of the rebel States, who were exec ted from the benefits of that proclamation. these facts show that there is no ground for the supposition that the surrender of the rebels proceeded from any just expectation of being restored to power in the Government. and, so far as the President is concerned, his proclamation gives evidence that it was not his intention, even some months after the surren der, to receive them or recognize them as the representatives of iolitical power. this said that the acts of pardon granted in individual cases, or the general charter of amnesty and pardon of the 29th of May, changes in some measure the political relation of the public enemies to, the Government itself. I do not think so. A pardon does not confer or restore political power. A general act of amnesty ditlers from an individual or don only in the fact that it applies to acass of offenders who cannot be individually de scribed. It secures immunity from punishment or prosecution by obliterating all remembrance of the offense. But it. confers or restores no one to political power. On the contrary, the general charter of amnesty, even if authorized by Congress, as it may be said to have been by the act of July, 1862, contains conditions and limitations of purpose which excludes any idea of restoring political power to public enemies who might be affected by its provisions. Am nest and pardon are granted to all persons not in the excepted classes, " with restoration to rights of property” in cases where legal pmccedings had not been instituted for its confiscation. So far as the charter of amnesty and pardon is concerned, by its own conditions and terms, by its express terms, all idea of extending to them political privileges or power is excluded. But, sir, the effect of a pardon deserves to be a little more carefully considered. A pardon restores a criminal when pardoned to all the rights that can be conferred upon him by the authority granting the pardon. That is all. If the POTUS, in addition to the authority to pardon which he has, had also the power to invest those with political rights and he expresse (people it in his pardon, then they would not only be free from prosecution, but be invested with political rights; but the President has no such power. He has the simple power of pardon. The power of declaring who shall exercise the franchise is in the 1st instance conferred upon the States by the 1st article of the constitution; and in the 2nd instance, by the provision conferring the right to judge of the election of its members, on the Congress of the U.S., and without their concurrence the President has no right to invest franchise in anybody. Several of the States have in the exercise of their undoubted right disfranohised those regarded as public enemies. congress has refused admission to persons claiming rights as members. By the several acts from 1861 to 1865 it has declared the inhabitants of the revolted States to be public ene mies. It forbade all commercial intercourse or correspondence with them. It passed laws for their punishment as traitors. ntil these acts of the States and of the General government are repealed by authority of the States and of Congress no person can exercise political power of his own right, or any other than a delegated power. A pardon whether by individual act or by general amnesty does not, and cannot, change this condition of things. I suppose this principle to be so well established that it does not require the citation of authorities to maintain it. I venture to say that there is notin the history of law a single case of pardon which is held to invest persons with political power in a Government or State other than that controlled by the authority granting the pardon, or to restore other right than exemption from prosecution or punishment. It is a principle which has at least been recognized by the law Dept of the Government. I think At torney General Cashing are it as his oiiicial opinion explicitly that a tall pardon cannot be held to restore political rights. Now, it is said that this disfranchisement cannot be enforced. Why not? Because, for sooth, the States to be affected will not accept it. Very well. It is not necessary; there are 25 States represented in this House. 27 is the number necessa to amend the Constitution. The States of Tennessee and Arkansas will accept this proposition of disfranchisement withouthesitation. They have already adopted the principle in the organization of their own Stategovernments. It would be impossible otherwise for the loyal men of Tennessee and Arkansas to maintain governments, and their consent gives us the requisite number of States to make the amendment a vital part of the Constitution. If itbe defeated at all, it will be defeated by the Republican States or by the Democratic States of the North. It will not be defeated by the insurgent States. There is, then, no justification or the opinion so strongly expressed, that this measure will fail because the rebel States will not consent to the disffanchisement of any portion of their own people. The proposition is for the loyal States to determine upon what terms they will restore to the Union the insurgent States. It is not necessary that they should nrticipate in our deliberations upon this so ject, and wholly without reason that they should have the power to defeat it. It is a matter of congratulation that they have not this power. We have the requisite number of States without them. It is said, again, that we cannot enforce it in these States because 7 8ths or 9 10ths of the people are enemies to the Government. Thatis not true. We do our cause great injustice and we do the people of the South infinitely greater injustice when we accept and publish as our own the arguments of rebel enemies of the country. They say that the whole people of those States voluntarily made war against the Government. Mr. Speaker, it is not so. I do not believe that there is a State in this Union where at least a clear majority of the people were not from the beginning opposed to the war; and could you remove from the control 7f public opinion one or 2000 in each of these States, so as to let up from the foundations of political society the mass of common people. you would have a population in all these States as loyal and true to the government as the people of any portion of the East or West. I know that the people of the South are filled at present with prejudice against the civilization, the institutions, and the people of the North; but the moment they have felt the beneficial effects of that civilization, when ever they become acquainted with our people, as they will at no distant day, they will cordially and honestly fraternize with them. It requires a little time, but the result is inevitable. During this terrible war, which has cost the people a million of lives, and of treasure inap preciable, the people of the South have been compelled to take up arms and sustain rebellion. In the Southwest it was made a crime, punishable in the severest manner, for any rebel soldier to declarepublicly or to his comrades that this was the rich mans war and the poor mans light. But it was nevertheless a fact. The people knew that it was the rich mans war an the poor mans light. The legislation of the insurgent States exempted to a great degree the rich men and their sons on account of the possession of property, while it forced at the paint of the bayonet, and often times at the cost of life, the masses of the people to maintain their cause. There is not in in the whole war more atrocious than the cruel measures taken by the rebel leaders to force the people who had no interest in it and were averse to sharing its dishonor and peril and no public act, in my opinion, manifests more wisdom or a keener sense of justice than the exclusion by the president from the benefits of the charter of am nesty the rebels whose fortunes exceeded $20,000. Would that it had been enforced against them! Now, if by any means we could reach the masses of these people we should find loyal men in numbers and strength in all these States. The common people have no interest hostile to the U.S. I do not mean that class of men best acquainted with public affairs, I mean the men who have borne no part in the important duties of public life the common men, the laboring men. We shall find that ultimately, and at no distant day, they will become the truest and best friends of the Government; and this amendment, as I understand it, will contribute greatly to the beneficent result. Sir, it does not exclude and it will not exclude 9 10ths of the population of any of these States. How will it operate? It will begin with the beginning and it will go on to the end. In the 1st place, it will commence its operations in the States in the valleys of the Ohio and the Mississippi. In each one of those States there is a majority of the people, perhaps a large majority, who, iflelt to their own judgment, will be friendly to the Government of the U.S and thus from its operations, where it can be immediately applied, and where it will be immediately successful, it will produce the exact result which we desire, the immediate restoration of the governments of the States to the Union, the recognition of the loyal people, and the disfranchisement of the imlacable and unchangeable public cuc mies of the Union, and the creation of State governments upon the sound and enduring basis of common interest and common affection. Suppose for instance, that until 1870 some of:he southern States SCarolina, Georgia, or Alabama should decline to accept the terms of the amendment, and remain outside of the Union. Is it not better that they should be out than in, it that is their spirit? Will it do us any harm or them any good? I think not. On the contrary, the fact that some of the States may be admitted in 1866, as I believe they will be, and others perhaps in 1867, and so on until the last recusant bommonwealth returns to the Union, shows this to be by far the best process that could be devised for the maintenance of our Government and its institutions and the restoration of States. It was said by the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. Gnarisml that there is no tribunal which can judge of the properor improperenforcement of this.provision. That is an error. In regard to the election of members of Congress are l is the tribunal. In regard to the election of Senators. the Senate at the other end of the Capitol is the tribunal, perfect, absolute, comtent, and ready always to discharge this duty and make the right decision. In regard to the choice of electors for Pros ident and VEEP, which seems to have caused more apprehension, the solution is equally simple, certain, and just. There is alwa sa tribunal that is cometent to judge whether this provision of the constitution has been propery enforced. It is not altogether a new question. In 1844 the country ese aped a revolution, as many persons think. They did not then, as now, comprehend the secret springs of that eril. In the State of Tennessee 175 or 180 men voted directly for Polk and Dallas as candidates for President and VEEP instead of for the presidential electors. If those votes given against the law were counted, then Mr. Polk would mceive the electoral vote of that State. If they were excluded, then the electoral vote of the State would be given for Henry Clay. So closely hung the balance that for 6 weeks it was impossible to determine who had car ried Tennessee. It ultimately became of lit tle importance, because the vote of the great State of NewYork was given through Silas. Wright to Mr. Polk. Had NewYork voted for Clay, Tennessee would have decided the election. We can now estimate the consequences of that departure from the letter of the law of a small number of. Democrats inTennessee. Had the question reached this House it would present exactly the problem the solution of which gives so much trouble to the honorable Gentfrom Ohio, [Mr. GARFIELD] and its solution removes the difficulty presented by him. But that case does not stand alone. There is nothing new under the sun. In 1856 Wisconsin did not vote for electors on the day required by law. Her vote when presented here was not counted. If the vote of that State had decided the balance betweenGenlFremont and Mr. Buchanan, it would have made trouble, because we now know that long and careful reparations had been made for rebellion and 3the opportunity only was wanting. The case presented in 1844 or in 1856 would have been more proiitious than that offered by the election of Mr. Lincoln, because it would have concealed the real object of the conspirators, and secured an open and powerful support in the North. It presented the ditheult suggested by the Gentfrom Ohio. gut this is its solution. It exhibits the almost supernal wisdom of our frame of Government. It shows that the sac rifice of blood and treasure was well made to defend it. In either of the cases presented by Tennessee or Wisconsin the congress would have been the tribunal to decide the issue. The 2 Houses would have met in convention according to the Constitution. If they agreed the question would have been decided, and the election of President declared in accordance therewith. If there was difference of opinion in regard to the question presented, the Senate would have withdrawn to its Chamber; the House would have remained in its seats; and then after mature deliberation, it may have been for weeks or months, each House would have determined what should be done and should the 2 Houses not come to the same conclusion, and refuse to recognize an election, the President of the Senate, or in his absence the honorable Speaker of this House, would have administered the Government until another election could have been hold. This would have been done by resolution of congress within 18 months from the 4th of March when the vacancy was found to exist. Tne Constitution is equal to every emergency, and what there is defective, if anything, the wisdom of the people will supply. If then, as lately, a portion of the States d determined to break up the Government, they would then have appealed to arms, and been beaten, in the providence of God, as now. Men in every crisis of our history have predicted the failure of our Government, but it has stood every storm thus far, and will last, I trust, till time is no more. There is less chance of ditheulty from this cause than ever before. It is said again, on the other hand, that there has been no successful example of this plan of organization of Government. Mr. Speaker, America presents new illustrations of history and of government. But we are not left entirely without light. It will be so to the end. She is the pioneer of Christian nations. If we were without a guide, it would not be unwise for us to say that the powers of the Government should be intrusted to its friends and not to its enemies. In a dark night, on a stormy sea, the humblest man on shiboard would know enough to advisethat the elm should be put in the hands of a man who wanted to save the ship, and not in his whose purpose was to destroy it. We are not left without guidance. Switzerland, the wisest Government on the face of the earth, one that has encountered greater difficulties with a higher degree of success than any other, has given us a lesson which we ought not to disregard. In 1848 she suffered from rebellion not dissimilar to ours. She met it as we did. The insurgents were conquered. The revolt was suppressed. She organized governments in the cantons, us Mr. Lincoln undertook to or gmize governments here. The friends of her government, soldiers and civilians, marched into the insurgent cantons, outlawed those engaged in the rebellion, and they organized governments on such principles as were consistent with the safety of the governments. They proceeded from canton to canton until all were restored. Power was maintained in the hands. of its friends. The disloyal inhabitants of the disloyal cantons were deprived of the rights they had forfeited by crime. As the result of that policy, Switzerland today is as sound and safe a Government as there is on the continent of Europe. In a little time she readmitted her recusaut sons to their former privileges, and they now, through her liberality, enjoy, without endangering her institutions, the same rights which they eujoed before the war. What wiser course couldythey have followed? What better example for us? If we need counsel, to what people can we turn with greater profit than to heroic Switzerland, that for cen turies has nurtured republican principles in their purity and in triumph against the des potisms of Europe? [Here the hammer fell.]