Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. Speaker, I have frequently of late asked myse the question, is reconstruction an insoluble problem? I have noticed so many different propositions for its solution, and find so much of difficulty in the acceptance of any of them, owing to the differences between the President and Congress, that I have almost despaired of the hope that anything can or will be done at this session of congress toward the accomplishment of the mac desired end. These differences between Congress and the President I trust are not ir reconcilable. My hope, sir, is that all may yet be well, that passion and prejudice may yield to wisdom and patriotism; that party spirit or ambition may not be allowed to interfere with a complete, final, irreversible policy of reconstruction based upon just and humane principles. Sir, I do not doubt but that it is the earnest desire of the people of the loyal States to have this question settled at the earliem mt practicable, but when it is settled they want security for the future” if they cannot obtain “indemnity for the past.” How to obtain that security is the question of the hour, and it is, considering all tings, the most grand and serious and vitally important question ever up for settlement in an merican Congress. It can net be settled by crimination and recrimination; it cannot safely be adjusted by appeals to the passions and reudices of the people; nor Iylet can it be reac e by returning power and inence to those so recently engaged in the mad attempt by force of arms to destroy the government. 1 Now, in regard to the proper policy to be pursued in regard to these States, I will consider some of the theories which have been advanced. Looking at. the proelamation of Mr. Lincoln, when POTUS; the acts of Congress and orders emanating from the State and War Depts of the government; the action of the Baltimore convention, which nominated Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Johnson as candidates for President and VEEP of the Union party of the country, I must consider that throughout this rebellion these States have been regarded as States and the must he treated as such. While I differ with the position of the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, [Mr. STEVENS, I can find in his doctrine a more convenient policy to be pursued upon this great question than in recognizing them as States. But we are living under a written Constitution; the whole of the war was to overthrow the organized rebellion of the southern States against the authority and constitution of the U.S. We suppressed the rebellion upon the idea that the doctrine of secession was a heresy unwarranted by the Constitution of this country. We claimed that these States owed allegiance as States to the Federal Government; that they have no right to break up their relations with the Federal Government; that by revolution, and in no other way than by the success of armies in the field, could they accomplish the establishment of a Government de jure. I have said that the theory of the Gentfrom Pennsylvania was a more convenient the ory upon the practical question of reconstruction, to make it safe in the future, than the theory of recognizing them as States. We all appreciate the difficulties connected with this question. At eve step of our progress we are met with the Odious and infamous doctrine out of which this rebellion grew the doctrine of State rights. Sir, I am not of those who deny to the States certain rights. But I am of those who deny the right of these States to secede or to control the question of reconstruction by simply laying down their arms and presenting themselves at the doors of Congress for admission. I deny their right. to admission until Congress shall settle the terms upon which their members shall be admitte. v I think that practically the question as to whether these States are in or out of the Union does not figure here; I think but little importance attaches to it. But whatever may be said with regard to that, I think I can say that the loyal people of this country will see the difference between the policy of the President and the policy of Congress. If I understand correct y the policy of the President it is this: that whenever a loyal man presents himself as regularly elected a member of Congress from any district in the South, it is the duty of Congress at once to admit him. I understand the policy of Congress to be, that while they won d be perfectly willing to admit to the floor of this House, to the privileges of a member, a loyal man, they desire to be well satisfied in their own minds that such a man can be returned from that district after the militar power of the U.S shall be remove from those States. In other words. they want to be satisfied that in a free and fair election is the southern States of this Union loyalty will be in the aseendency, and that loyal men can be returned to Congress from those States. Now take the State of Tennessee: I believe that before this Congress adjourns the members from that State will be admitted here as members of Congress. I believe that this Congress desires the restoration of these States so far as their representation in Congress is concerned and all the clamor raised by the partisan press of this country, that.Congress is keep these States unrepresented, endeavoringto is false. he desire of members in Congress is that these States shall be restored at the earliest practicable moment; but they demand guarantees for the future eace and quiet and prosperity and loyalty of these States before they are admitted to representation.