Mr. Stephens pursued rior to and up to the very commencement oft to war; but finally yielding to the opinions which be entertained that his allegiance was to his State, when his State seceded he went with it.‘ But the Senator cannot ask me ifI am in favor of the admission of Stephens and Johnson. I am not while the law stands. The law says that Stephens and Johnson must take this oath. Can they take it? if they can in truth I am in favor of their admission; but while the law stands I am in favor of no man taking a seat in this Hall who cannot truthfully swear to this oath. Let any man come and propose to take this oath who cannot do it truthfully, and I am against his admission. Then, sir, the question is, shall we admit the true men of the South? And that is the question which is to be fought before the people this year the question whether the southern States shall be represented, not by reb, not by traitors, but by men who in the midst of the great controversy, in the midst of the storm of passion and prejudice that bore down upon them, stood true to the flag, the Constitution, and the Union. I say we are bound to admit them by the resolution of 1861. We then said when the obligation to the Constitution was enforced the war should cease and the Union become restored. The Union being restored, the Constitution of our country says each State shall have 2 Senators in this body. That Constitution is not changed. It is a constitutional right, when they come prepared to take this oath under the law, to take their seats in this Hall. I am in favor of giving them their seats, restoring those States to all their prac tical relations to the Federal Government, and then let trade and commerce find their chan nels again. Let our trade on its way down the Mississippi find a'pros erous pee in there ready to buy whatever we have to so 1. I say that that state of things is worth a dozen Niagara canals to the 'people of southern Indiana and Illinois. Mr. President, it is not my intention to'protract the discussion upon this question; but this has been so frequently misrepresented, or at least misstated, that I felt it to be my duty to correct it, to show just what was the question before the country and what is the question here. It is, who shall be admitted under the existing law? Now, sir, this session of Congress has con“ tinued on until July. If we have got to take up bills like this and discuss and pass them and consider all their provisions, this session must last until some time in August. Thiscer tainly is not desirable. It is not necessary for the prosperity of this enterprise, even if congress eventually shall agree to it. We can pass‘ this bill at the next session, if it is desirable to pass it at all, an the work can commence in the spring of the next year. It could hardly commence this ear if we passed this bill now.’ There is no deay then caused by postponing the bill, and a vote to postpone is not a vote in hostility to the measure. I think it is very proper to postpone it, considering the opposition that is made to the present consideration of the bill by the great State of NewYork. I think it is due to ourselves,considering the length of the session, as we have now gone into the middle of the summer months, and I think it is due to Congress and to the country that we should adjourn.