Mr. SHERMAN. If so, why not put it right in here and say so? That is the manly way. If we want to make the issue that no State shall come back here and have Sens&Reps until she allows all to vote, without distinction of colorI why not make the issue frankly and munfully‘! But that is not dune. We have refused to do it; we now refuse to do it; we do not do it by the proposition of the ComJudiciary. “ The House resolution then goes on to declare that the State of Tennessee is hereby restored to her former proper practical relations to the Union.” There is the simple proposition, that Tennessee, by the adoption of the constitutional amendment, by her action for the last 2 or 3 ears, by her adhesion to the Government, by organizing a government (at the head of which is Governor Brownlow) and a Union Legislature, by acquiescing and submitting to every proposition made by us, by sending here Sens&Reps who it is admitted can take the oath of office and are entitled to hold their seats, shall be so declared entitled. We here declare in a few words that Tennessee has complied with all these terms, and then we say in conclusion that she is entitled to representation. Now, is it worth while for us to cucumber this proposition, which everybody can vote for except those who are not willing to give up universal suffrage, by propositions upon which we disa cc? I do not think the Senfrom Illinois fairly slated my argument. I have voted with him throughout this session that the question of the condition of these States is a question to be determined by Congress. We have as serted that twice by aconcurrent resolution. We asserted it in t 6 organization of the reconstruction committee in so many words. We asserted it still more definitely in the proposition that was passed in March last and which we all voted for. Now, is it worth while again to insert that assertion into the body of this resolution, as if we still had some doubts about it and were determined to force the President to agree to it? Suppose the President differs from us, as we know he does, is it worth while for us again to reasscrt that proposition? Will his forced acquiescence in it give it any vitality? We have asserted the power; we have exercised the power; we have this day the power; and I will never surrender it; but I will not force it into his teeth and compel him to acuiesce in the assertion of the power, when c has told us over and over again that he does not think we have it as we assert it. I will exercise it, but I would not thrust it into his teeth by a JtResolution, especially when no practical good can come out of it. The result at which we seem all to aim is the admission of Tennessee. When the other Shtes come in we can apply the test to them. All we as in this resolution is that Tennessee is entitle to admission. I can say [0 Son ators that from my correspondence with the people, the people of Ohio particularly and thinkin this in colleague will agree with me while upon other things there may be differences of opinion, there is a warm, heart, earnest. unanimous sentiment that we should admit the State of T nessee to representation before we adjourn. That is their earnest desire, and we can close the controver. to day by the admission of Tennessee upon the basis proposed by the HoRep. If you adopt the amendment reported by thj ComJudiciary the resolution must g, back to the House; you have perhaps a controversy between the 2 Houses; you may have a controversy with the President. I do not see any use in the delay, and therefore I am in favor of the adoption of the House prop position.