Mr. NESMITH. Mr. President the nation having passed successfully through the most terrible ordeal of four years of civilWar, and having vindicated its supremacy over every foot of its vast territory, as the din of battle is hushed, and the fierce passions of the combatants have Subsided, we are no longer called upon to devise means for the support of great armies, but the higher duty devolves upon us of restoring the country to a state of peaceful prosperity and happiness. In the discharge of this important duty let us not be animated by feelings of hatred and revenge toward those so recently in hostility to the national authority, but rather cultivate that spirit of friendship and forbearance so essential to our future prosperity as a great, united, and prosperous people, destined to the enjoyment of agree Government of our own construction. The ravages of war, which have wrought such have c with all our material interests, have been unequalto the task of destroying or subverting our form of government, find we emer e from the conflict with a constitution intact, while the mass of our people are only the more strongly devoted to its principles by reason of the perils it has survived. It now becomes our duty to repair the damages resulting from attempts at disorganization. In the discharge of that duty we cannot, if we would, relieve ourselves from the obligations which we are under to “guaranty to every State in this Union a RFG. ”. As diverse sentiments are entertained relative to the mode of discharging this duty, I propose to examine the Presidents plan of restoration involving the speedy admission of Sens&Reps from the southern States, and then the opposite or different plan of what is popularly called reconstruction, under some ind of act to be passed by Congress, in which new conditions of) admission shall be exacted. Upon exnhinin both these plans, and contrusting them with i each other, we shall be able to form a clear opinion as to our duty in this juncture of our public affairs. The President has required several things of the southern people, and has recommended others for their acceptance; and he has done all this in his capacity of CommanderinChief of the Army an Navy of the U.S., and also in his civil capacity as Chief Executive of the ile public. As GbmmanderinChief, it was his dut to put down the rebellion and all its works, and he as (lone so thoroughly. At least what was left undone by his redecessor. toward this end he has done most faithfiilly and skillfull. Armed resistance no longer continues anywhere within the limits of the U.S., nor is there the slightest probability that it will be renewed. but there were rebel State governments throughout the socalled confederate States. These have been subverted utterly removed from the face of the earth. Pegurded as revolutionary and illegal in character, they were made to give way before the power of the U.S., until not a vestige of them is now left. All those hostile organizations are defunct. They are dead, and will know no resurrection. The President, believing them to be wholly Invalid in point of law, and criminal in purpose, refued them the slightest recognition, an has wiped them out effectually an finally. This was his duty, and he has performed it well. But other things beyond this were required to vindicate the authority of the U.S and to stamp the rebellion as illegal and wrong ful. The President has therefore required those States to repudiate their ordinances of secession in express terms, and this has been done by most of those States in reorganizing their governments upon a loyal foundation. Their constitutional conventions have declared those ordinances to be null and void. In one or 2 cases, I believe, the have simply repealed them, but the practical c ect is in substance the same. A further requirement made by the President, and acceded to by the pee leof the South, has been the reudintion of all rebel indebtedness incurred in behalf of the rebellion. I believe the rebel indebtedness, or at least most of it, had its payment conditional upon the accomplishment of southern independence. It was madepayablewhen the confederate Stateexspshreouss? d become independent of the U.S., and their independence should be recognized. Upon the whole, I conclude the confederate creditors hold about the worst securities known upon the face of the earth. There is no such government as incurred thatdebt in existence, and never will be; the time fixed for payment has become impossible, and lastly, at the instance of President gohnson, the whole debt has been repudiated, as unauthorized and unlawful by opular conventions. Little sympathy needbe filtin the case for the creditors of the South, whether foreign or do mestic. They loaned their money upon a speculation and took the chances of the war. Intact, the confederate loans were in the nature of a mbling transaction; they were in substance ets upon the issue or result of the war. If the confe eracy triumphed, the loanholders would make immense fortunes upon small sums invested. If it failed, they were to lose their investments, for by the express terms of their contract they were only to be paid in case the rebellion should be successful. From this statement of the position of the confederate creditors, how unnecessary appears the proposed amendment to the constitution of the U.S. to prevent the payment of the confederate debt. 2 debt 3 times deadal ready is to be killed a 4th time by an amendment to the Federal constitution. 1 hedebtor the confederate governmentis dead, and has left no effects; the time of payment has become an impossible date, and President Johnson has had an express repudiation of it put in all the new southern constitution s. I think, therefore, the subject is disposed of, if it be possible to dispose of and settle any subject whatever which has once been involved in public debate. But I will proceed with my statement of the Presidents policy of restoration, in order to bring out all the leading points which itinvolves. The rebel State governments being entirely removed from the southern country, and the civil and military authorities of the spurious confederacy put down, the scene presented in that section was one of unorganized States. The territory and the people remained, and over both the authority of the Government of the U.S. was reestablished; but the latterwas seen mainly in the exhibition of the war power by which the rebellion had been smitten, and its political as well as martial machinery leveled to the dust. The President explains veryhand somely and clearly in his annual message the views by which he was rompted at that time. For the moment, his will was law from the Po tomac to the shores of the Gulf. He held in hand the largest army of modern times, an ha and (proper; an mense naval force, and stood as the represents"tive of a flushed and triumphant nation. It isa maxim that “power is ever giasing" and am bitious of its own perpetuity. but when the ruler of a great nation, in times when turbu lence seems to have relaxed the bonds of government, refuses to usurp questionable authority over a fallen foe, whose acts are so justly open to universal condemnation, he gives the strongest possible evidence of his patriotism and honesty of purpose, and furnishes a new guarantee of bet the justice and strength of a republican Government. o greater mass of power was ever held under circumstances of such transcendent importance by one men since the creation of the earth. But our patriot President was equal to the crisis. The occasion did not find him unprepared for the duties which it imposed. He remembered his oath to sup art the constitution of the U.S. e remembered that he was one of the people, lodged by his birth, by his early struggles, by the professions and conduct of a rolongod and illustrious ca reer, to the republican principle of government by the people and tor the people, and to the rejection of a1forms of arbitrary and unconstitutional rule. While he was determined to secure the properfruits of victory he had no heart for works of persecution and venge ance, uoran disposition to transcend his powers and establish despotic principles in the administration of the Government. What then did he do, and what does he now propose? Let him be judged by his acts, openly performed in the face of the world, and by the recommcm dations of polio which he makes to Congress and to the people. Well, sir, he called into requisition the executive power of pardon, and he has used that power efficiently in the work of restoration. hrough this power he has dealt with individuals engaged in rebellion. He has restored many such to their rights, forfeited under the laws of their country, and screened them from prosecution and punishment. one rashly, blin ly, and without discrimination or just conditions imposed? No, sir, nothing of the sort! There was no precipitancy and no blundering! His general amnesty proclamation conformed to this policy of his pred ecessor, Mr. Lincoln, but be reserved from its operation large classes of cases for special action upon individual applications for pardon; and in all cases where executive clemenc has been extended, an oath has been require as a guarantee of future conduct and of allegiance to the Government of the U.S. Through his exercise of the pardonin power the authority and dignit of the Unite have been asserted, an those who have been unfaithful to the Government made to acknowl edge their fault, to sue for clemency, and most solemnly to pledge their fealty to the U.S. The general submission of the southern people since the close of the war rendered a magnanimous policy toward them possible Idp believe the presient has acte with greatdiscretion and wisdom in extending amnesty and pardon to the great mass of the southern people, while withholding it thus far from particular classes or prominent offenders among them. But his policy for restoring loyal State governments has been equally important. He did not choose to continue military occupation of the South, with its enormous expense and other attendant evils, an longer than was necessary. Troops were there ore iadually withdrawn and disbanded, and now the number remainin in that section is comparatively inconsiderable. For military rule civil rule has been substituted, and that in the cal way in which it could be properly done by eaction of the people themselves. They were invited to reorganize their State governments, and they have done so, fully and completely. To this end delegates to constitutional conventions were chosen, constitutions formed, and subsequent elections for members of Legislatures, or Governors lmd other officers have been held. Perfect Stats But was this States governments have been reestablished by the action of the people themselves in nearly all the States in question, which are republican in form, and clearly entitled to the protection of the U.S. under the guarantee clause of the constitution. 1 deny all power in Congress, or the president, or in both combined, to make a State constitution, or to dictate any provision which shall be contained in it. A constitution must be wholly made by the people over whom it is established, and can be made or amended by no other persons whatever. Thus have been made the new constitutions of the southern States, and their validity rests immovably upon the ground that the are thus popular in origin, while loyal in o ject and republican in form. It is true that the proceeings for forming the new constitutions were initiated by provisional governors appointed by the presieat and acting under his direction. But this cannot affect the validity or merit of the constitutions made. The provisional governors simply invited the people to act in their sovereign capacity in reorganizing governments for themselves, which was both necessary and proper under the circumstances which then existed. There were no local authorities or officers competent to call conventions, or give them protection while in session, although a clear necessity for convening existed, if civil rule was, to supplant military rule in that section of the country. Therefore the provisional governors, who represented the military power of the U.S. for the time being, in order to the withdrawal of that power and to the restoration of valid and loyal State governments, were authorized to invite the people to select dele gates to constitutional conventions in their respective States. Those conventions met and formed constitutions which are unquestionably 0d and lawful, not because the making of them was instigated or invited by provisional governors, but because (as before stated) they were in fact made by the people over whom they are established, and made in accord with the Government of the U.S. I am not now speaking of the exceptional cases of Louisiana. Virginia, and Arkansas, but of the other States of the South in which there was no pretense of loyal government at the close of the war, and where it was necessary, therefore, that some authority, some otheial or yolunteer asso ciation, or person, should initiate their establishment by setting in motion the sovereign popular power which was alone competent to the work. There is no soundness in the objection some times made that the southern constitution s, or some of them, were not submitted toa popular vote for adoption or rejection. The people of any State may authorize delegates, selected by them, to form a constitution, which shall be legal to all intents and purposes; and the people of some of the States of the Union are now ving under constitutions thus made. For instance, the Pennsylvania constitution of 1790, which yet exists in an amended form, was not submitted to a opular vote, but was simply proclaimed by t ie convention which may c it. It is very well that new constitutions should, in ordinary cases, be submitted to a popular vote: and this is necessary where alaw under which a convention assembles provides for such submission. But it is most absurd to say. as some have said, that a constitution cannot take effect and have authority unless adopted by a popular vote; for it is perfectly plain and undeniable, that though the people cannot strip themselves of their sovereignty, they may delegate to a representative body the exercise of sovereign powers. In fact the people would no longer be sovereign if they should o stripped of the power of a pointing dele gates or representatives to act or them in the making of a constitution. In the case of Kansas the true objection was not simply that the Lecompton constitution had not been submitted to a vote of the people. In fact a part of it was submitted. The true objection was that the people of Kansas did not select the men who made the constitution, and that, therefore, it could not be taken as their “act and deed, ”unless the should accept or ratif it by a direct vote. at where the people o in fact select delegates to a convention, and confer upon them, expressly or im liedly, the power or authority to frame a constitution, the convention may enact a constitution, which will be valid without any additional sanction or further proceeding. But oncpointfurtherconnected with the presidents plan of restoration (and it is a most important one) remains to be noticed. It is the securing of emancipation to the black race in the South as a result of the war, and as a guarantee of future quiet and harmony to the amtion. Emancipation, now fully accomplished, bothving law and fact, rests upon the following foundations: 1. The proclamation of President Lincoln of January 1, 1863. 2. His subsequent amnest proclamation, so far as the same was accepte or acted upon by individuals in the southern country. 3. The direct action of military force during the war, in conformity with executive policy, and, to some extent, under the authority of laws enacted by Congress. 4. The amnesty proclamation of President Johnson, of 1865, and subsequent special pardons granted hy him; amnesty and pardon being extended upon conditions which involved emancipation and furnished securities for carrying out the previous policy of the President and Congress on that subject. 5. The adoption, by the Legislatures of the several reorganized States, of the proposed amendment to the constitution prohibiting slavery generally and for all future time within the U.S., and conferring upon Congress adequate power to enforce the prohibition. Upon the last 2 heads the resident speaks as follows in his annual message: “In exercising that power [the power of pardon I have taken over precaution to connect it witht e clearest recognition of the binding force of the laws of the U.S., and anunqualifiedacknowledgment of the Greatsocialchangeof Condition in regard to slavery which has grown out of the war.” The executive power of amnesty and pardon was ample to cover and justify what was done. In other words, it. was competent for the president to attach conditions to pardons granted. He proceeds in his message to say: “The next stepwhich I have taken to restore the constitutional relations of the Stateshas beenan in vitation to them to participate in the high ofice of amendmglheConstMutmn. “ is not too much to ask. in the nameof the whole eo pic, that on the one side the plan of restoration shall groceedin conformitywith a willingness to cast the isorders of the past into obliVion, and that, on the other, the evidence of sincerity in the future main tenanceof the Union shall be put beyondany doubt by the ratification of the proposedamendmentto the constitution which prov as for the abolition of all. very forever within the limits of our country.” This “invitation” to the southern States has been comlied with by them. They have, through their ILegislatures. adopted the constitutional amendment, and thus made it a part of the fundamental law of the U.S. I have thus gone over several features of the Presidents policy of restoration, so far as the same relates to the action of his Dept of the Government; and however much nice crit ics, captious men, or interested agitators may be disposed to find fault with it and condemn it, either in whole or in part, I believe the great mass of the peodo of this country will heartily approve and in orse. it. In fact, the evidences of such approval come to us from eve quar ter; they multiply daily, and cheer an invig orate the frien s of reunion and of constitutional rule. What, then, remains for Congress to do to perfect restoration, to carry out the policy which the President has begun? In his annual message the President adresses congress as follows: "Thenmendmenttotbe constitution bein adopted, it would remain for States whose powers have been solong in nbeyuuceto resumctheir placesin the 2 branches of the national Legislature, and thereby completethe work of restoration. Here it is for you, fellowcitizo l of the Senate and for you, fa lowci non: of the HoRep. toiu. each of you, for yourselves, of the elections, returns, and qualification of your own members.” The meaning of this important passage cannot be misunderstood. The language is remarkableand peculiar in form. It is addressed to the members of each House separately and distinctlv, and suggests to them the ierformnnce of a duty under the provision of the constitution which makes the respective Houses judges of questions relating to membership. his is a power to be exercised by each House for itself, quite independent of and uninfluenced by the other House. The duty is judicial in its nature and not legislative, and one of the gravest character and the power is so clear, and its exercise so necessa to the restoration of the Union, that the President, as it was proper for him to do, has in emphatic language called the attention of Congress to its performance and in addressing the members of each House, in their so rate capacity, he has used language suite to the inculcation of the constitution all duty, and distinguished it from all those duties which are to be performed by the 2 Houses in their joint or legislative capacity. In his communication to the Senate of december 18, in answer to a resolution ofinquiry, the President further says: “From all the information in in possession and from that which I have recently erived from the most reliable authority, I am induced to cherish the belief that sectional animosit is surel and rapidly merging itself into a spirit o nationa it and that repreaentation, connectedwith a properly adjusted systemof taxation. will result in n armonioiu resto ration of the relations of the States to the national Government.” We have here, in these extracts, the opinion of the President upon the question o what should be done at this juncture by Congress, or rather by the respective Houses of Congress, in the work of restoration. The representation of the southern States is to be restored by appropriate action of each House under a c ear cone stitutional power, the exercise ofwtheh will be completely cfiicacious to the object in view. Thus the Union can be restored in its integrity , and all questions connected with its restoration disposed of forever. Why, then, should not the Senate and House, respectively, proceed to consider the questions of membership which arebrought before them, and decide them upon the same principles of wisdom, magnanimity, and patriotism, which have characterized the presients conduct and policy with reference to the southern States? Vhat good object is to be subserved bv keeping open the question of restoration and delaying to the country the enjoyment of the fruits of victory and peace? these questions do not cence ru the people of the South alone. They are interesting and important to the people of the whole country. It is desirable, in the judgment of intelligent and patriotic men every where throughout the land? that all the relations between the sections which were interrupted by the war should be restored at the earliest possible moment. Let commerce revive; let trade resume its ceaseless activity; let social intercourse succeed to estrangement and division, and let the political bonds of union be renewed in all the strength and brightness of former times. But there are men who are dissatisfied with the prospect of these results. There are men who decry the Presidents policy and pronounce it a failure. There are men who are not sat islied with complete victory in the war: with emancipation secured by constitutional pro visions, repudiation of rebel indebtedness, and complete submission of the southern people to the laws and jurisdiction of the federalGovernment; and their sincere, generous, and earnest protier of allegiance and evotion to it. They seek to delay reunion, and to impose further conditions upon the southern people as the price of conceding it. What those conditions shall he does not very clearly appear, as scarcely any 2 men among the objectors agree entirely in their definition an statement. But some of them are sutheientl evident already and may be made the topics of immediate discussion. 1866. 291 They are to be presented through laws enacted by cones, and in propositions for the amendment ofihe constitution of the U.S. But, before they are discussed, it will be proper to notice briefly some of the reasons which up cal to Congress in favor of the presidents po cy of immediate restoration. The recognition: of the reorganized State governments, by the admission of Sens&Reps, is due to the loyal men of the South who assisted in their formation and now adhere to them, not only as instruments of lo cal government, but also for securin renewed representation in the Governmentoft o U.S. This class of men, our brothers and friends. have a merit above and be and that which belongs to men of the Nort. Their devotion to the Government was maintained under appalling difficulties. They have suffered severely, and they now look to immediate restoration as necessary to their interests and welfare. Their appeal is not to be resisted or postponed unless overwhelming considerations of necessity or policy demand it. TheseState governments have been organized in concert with the POTUS, and in accordance with a policy proposed by him as the Chief Magistrate of the nation. So far as he could reasonably act on behalfof the people of the U.S., in the work of reconstruction, we are bound in good faith to sustain the arrangements made at his instance, and accept representatives from the reorganized States. y prom t recognition, we concilihte the people of the South, and attach them more firmly to ourselves for the future. In this case, may nanimity is safety; for we will obtain by it additional security against future dangers. We will “consolidate tic Union;” that is, we will strengthen it, render its bonds firm. repress disaffection, and remove all possibility of foreign intrigue in that section hereafter. By immediate recognition we will promote and insure the prosperity of both sections. Capital will go more prom tly into the South for investment; productiont crewill be incited; trade and commerce will. revive, and sources of revenue to the public Treasury will be opened and enlarged. Recognition relieves us from a vast burden of expense in maintaining civil and military establishments of government, and from the in convenience and scandals arising from conflict in jurisdictions in administration. ccognition and representation in Congress establish and maintain a republican principle vital to our system and sanctified to us by the struggles of our fathers. We tax the South, and we shall tax it heavily hereafter. The public necessities and the principle ofequal taxation make this a necessity. but it will be unjust, odious, and antirepublican, to tax them without admitting them to representation in that Government by which the taxes are imposed. Finally, by recognition and renewed representation in Congress, we restore all the great interests of the country, and they will again have a due voice in the Government, and participate in the debates by which its policy is shaped and determined and itwill be particularly useful, as well usjust, that upon questions atfectin the southern people their Representatives shall be heard before the laws by which they are to be bound shall be enacted. It is further to be remarked that these reOrganized State governments can be recognized with much more propriety than those set up or proposed during the war under Mr. Lincolns 1/10th plan. In the 1st place, theyare established after the return of peace, and not during the pressure of military operations. They are, to a great extent, free from the objection urged against the Lincoln States, of bein formed within the theater of actual war, an therefore, of nce essity, mere creations and creatures of military iower. In the next place, they are established in each State by a clear majority of the people and not by a minority, thus conforming. in a most vital particular, to true republican principles. that they should not go out, and we made war evils which afthet the State. have been hurled against the sentiment, I still Some people think, or pretend to think, that l the southern States have been out of the Union, and that an act of Congress is necessary to rel admit or restore them. It is true that a part of the pee 10 South voted to go out of the Union, an took up arms to sustain that resolution. Thatis undeniably true. But we said to compel them to remain. The contest between them and us was to determine whether their resolution or ours, upon this very point of going out, should prevail. They were beaten in the war; their obycct frustrated, its realization prevented. They did not get out of the Union because they failed in the war. Success would have taken them out; failure left them in. That is the simple truth and the whole truth upon this subject, and the conclusion follows that no act of Congress is necessary to their restoration. I see, therefore, no objection upon grounds of principle to the Presidents policy of restoration so far as he has carried it, nor to its consummation and complete fulfillment by the admission of Senators an Representatives by Congress. On the contrary, the reasons which support that pol icy are numerous, weighty and ecisive. In contrast with the policy advocated by the President is that known as the radical policy, which proceeds upon the hypothesis that negro suffrage is a certain and sure remedy for all the I look upon the remedy as worse than the disease, as it imposes a lasting and permanent evil for one of a temporary character. An attempt to dilute and weaken the intelligence upon which the safety of our free institutions is founded can only be followed by disastrous results. If the inherent and superior intelligence of the white man isinca able of direct in and perpetuating our form of) Government, od defend us from an appeal to African auxiliaries for the consummation of that grand result. The right of suffrage impliedly carries with it the right of overuing by holding office, and against the lo gment of such powers in the hands of the late slaves I enter in solemn protest. I admit that it is not the fan t of the African, the Indian, or the Asiatic, that his skin is not white, or that he does not exhibit those great characteristics which qualify him to govern the white race, and I am not disposed to inflict punishment upon the African because, while our white ancestors were contending for civil and religious liberty, his were the nude barbarians engaged in eating or selling those whom the fortunes of war placed within their power upon their native deserts. God made the distinction in creating the races, and by an immutable law he made their permanent commingling an impossibility. whhere the white race iredominates it governs, and in Africa and Hayti, where the negro is the dominant race, he governs, and sedulously excludes the white man from any participation and while I do not propose to recnact the ordinances of Providence, am an advocate of the maintenance of the distinction of the races, socially and politically. Notwithstanding the denunciations which believe that this is a white mans Government. framed by white men, and for white men; instituted by their wisdom and defended by their valor. In saying this. I do not mean to be understood as asserting that the negroes, the Indians, or any other inferior races should be excluded from the natural rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of hnppmcss; but I do mean to say that the hardy, persevering, industrious, brave, and intelligent AngloSaxon race and their descendants, who brought civilization and the arts into the New World, and who have organized, defended, and perpetuated free government here, are not to be overridden and have a governmental policy dictated to them by any semi barbarous inferiors, who have never evinced the intelligence here, nor in their own country, necessary to better their own condition; who have never had inventive genius to improve upouthe rudeness of the most barbarous life who have never had the courage to assert and maintain a respectable Government anywhere. A stroke of the pen and sword combined has stricken the fetters from the limbs of the slave, but has left him, in point of intelligence, but little the superior of the brute creation or the inanimate objects by which he is surrounded. The stroke of neither the pen nor sword can relieve the emancipated s are of his servile instincts and fit him at once for the judicious exercise of the rightof suffrage. He is as iwno rant and passive today as he was before a drop of the white mans blood was shed to secure his emauciation, and he will be no better tomorrow. y forcibly thrusting upon him the right of suffrage, of which he has no adequate comrehension, you either leave him the dupe, of his old master, to be voted at his will, or force him into an nnequalcontest with your own race, who, since anyt in has been known of them, havecitherenslave orexterminatedeveryother race with which they haveconic in contact. It seems to me unreasonable that we should be called upon at this day to discuss a question of extending suffrage to a race who are noto riously unfit to exercise it intelligently and wisel. But surprise at this fact will be les sene when we consider that those who are most anxious to secure negro suffrage, who are most ardent and boisterous in its favor, are precisely those persons who know least about the negro, and are least qualified to judge and determine any question of policy concerning him. There is no extensive sentimentanywhere in the southern States in favor of negro suffrage. What is thought on that subject in this city of Washington was determined recently by an almost unanimous vote of the qualified citizens against it. Advancing northward, we find constitutional provisions established in most of the cen tral States to preclude all legislative action upon the subject. Only when we arrive. in the extreme North, where this race is scarcely known as an element of population, do we find any considerable sentiment in favor of degrading the elective franchise to the level of negro intelli gence and capacity and even in recent elections held in onnecticut, Wisconsin, and minnesota, decided majorities were given against the extension of suffrage to the small number of negroes resident in those States. Upon the Pacific coast, lam sure, the people are opposed to suffrage by negroes, by Asiatics, or by Indians found within their borders, and they will long remain so. In short, ifnegro suffrage were submitted, at this hour, to a vote of the whole electoral population of the U.S., Ibe lieve they would decide against it by a vote of 4 to one. Even the negroes themselves do not demand or ask it, except where they are instigated or influenced by white men whose trade is agitation and whose purpose is mischief. It is clear, then, that public opinion does not demand from Congress any legislation or action whatsoever looking to negro suffrage. The cry for it is the clamor of faction and not the voice of the people. It is equally clear and certain that Congress has no rightful power to determine a question of suffrage in any State; that an attempt to do so would be a usurpation, and directly opposed to the fundamenta division of powers between the States and the Federal Government. But negro suffrage would not be desirable or useful, bnt, on the contrary. pernicious, even if no impediment existed in n lic opinion, or in constitutional law. ltwou d inevitably degrade and corrupt elections, and that to an extent fearful to contemplate. Electoral priviloge is a trust as well as a right. It is, in act, a public duty rather than a personal privilege; a duty of the gravest importance. emf requiring independence, intelligence, and virtue in a hlgh degree to its proper exercise. Its strongest and most persistent advocates are to be foun among politicians who erceive the true relation between cause augeffect; that ignorance can be made to count hugely at elections, and that party organizations, and public men who would not be u held by the intelligence of the country can, y its aid, riot in place and wield the seeter of public power. ith all the justice, patriotism, and magna nimity which we may o aim for the States now represented upon this floor, how few of them have become convinced of the prepriety of conferring the right of suffrage upon the few and comparatively intelligent negroes to be found within their borders? If the experiment under such favorable circumstances becomes of doubt ful propriety with our own States, where is the justice or propriety of our forcing it upon other States, where the African has not be time to commence his recovery from the debasing effects of the most degraded servitude? The propriety of universal suffrage among our own race has long been a debatable question among the warmer friends of repubIican institutions, and while it is difficult to fix any boundaries for the intelligence which shall authorize its exercise, it is conceded by all that there is danger in conferring it upon those who are ignorant of our Government and institutions. Examples are not wanting of the restrictions which have been iiu osed by States against its universality. The In inn, with all his native sagacity and the noble attributes awarded to him by Utopian writers, has been almost Universally denied its exercise. In times of political excitement parties have been enabled to foist amendments upon State constitutions which excluded white persons of foreign birth whose political sentiments were not in unison with the progressive and transcendental theories of intolerant majoritie. But, sir, admitting, for arguments sake, the propriety of conferring the right of suffrage indiscriminately ufpou everything that walks upright upon t wo eet, what right as Congress to meddle with this question within the States of the Union? By an apeal to arms you have reduced the citizens of the southern States to a condition of obedience to the constitution and laws of the U.S. You and I denied their pretended assumption of the right to take their States out of the Union. They appealed to arms as the last resort, to enforce their pretended rights of secession. We metthem openly and squarely upon that issue, and wrun from them a verdict, at the cost of 100s o 1,000s of lives and 1,000s of millions of dollars. In this verdict they now acquiesce; and are we, in the moment of victory, to be guilty of the folly of turning around and conceding all their claims by admitting that they are noion er States of the Union, bound to observe its constitution and yield obedieneeto its laws and reciprocally entitled to its protection and rights? such action would be a surrender to the rebels, by legislation, of more than they have been able to wring from us by arms, and would be a practical ratification of the ir secession ordinances, and a dissolution of the Union by act of Congress. Why should we involve ourselves in the para doxical absurdity of denying the right of secession, of tightin them for 4 years to enforce that denia, an when they admit their failure by the last arbitrament, turn round and admit that they have accomplished their purpose, and are today outside the Union? he rebellion having been a failure on the part of those who inaugurated it, it would seem the height of folly 0n the part of those who resisted it so success fully to dignify it with all the consequences of a success. If, as I believe, they have not achieved the object for which they began the war, and their insurrection has been suppressed, it Would seem that nothing has occurred to change their political relations to the Union, and they must be still States composing its integral parts. Every Dept of this Government has so recognized them in some form or other, and I take it that they are as much States in the Union today as though their citizens had never committed treason against it. The crime of treason can only be committed by individuals, and whether they are pardoned or punished for the offense cannot affect the condition of the bodypolitic of which they may happen to be members. this a wellknown fact that in many of those States a minority of the people assumed to sever the connection of the State with the Union, and that the majority were forced to succumb in some instances to defacto governments forced upon them by a minority of their own citizens, aided by rebel forces drawn from other revolted States. In this view of the facts, if we are to admit that States thus situated have been taken out of the Union, it becomes an interesting question to know exactly how small a minority, aided by troops from other States, may be able, under teinfluence of such auxiliaries, to effect a legal consummation of the proposed act. It might also be the subject of inquiry to know to what extent the loyal and nouseceding majority were bound by such acts under duress. It is said that troops from nei hboring States surrounded the convention at ittle ltock, in arkansas, and by threats and intimidation forced members elected as Union men to vote for the ordinance of seceSsion. If Lee, in one of his advances into Pennsylvania, had, by the same means, effected the same results With a Legislature or convention at Harrisburg, and subsequently the people in Pennsylvania, or a majority of them, had been conscripted and placed in the rebel army; after the invaders ha been driven from the State as they have been from the southern States, would any man claim that Pennsylvania was no longer a State of this Union; and that in cousequence of her soil being invaded and her people overcome by rebel hordes, that her relation to the Union was changed, and that in conseqnence of thesere sults her altered relations to the Union were such as to authorize congress to interfere in her internal policy, or alter her suffrage laws? If it is claimed that such a secession from the Union, under such circumstances, was null and void, and ought not to alter the relations of Pennsylvania toward the Union, I answer that all acts of secession are equally null and void, and cannot change the relations which a State bears toward the Federal constitution. The ridiculous and absurd acts of the pretended and fugitive Legislatures of Kentucky and Missouri, by which those bodies pretended to sever the relations of their respective States with the Federal Union, were as valid as the similar attempts at thesame thing by the conventions of SCarolina and Mississippi. If they were not, and if Missouriand Kentucky are not today as effectually out of the Union as any other States, I should like to have some casuist upon the question of legal and constitutional secession explain the reason why. Yet no one seems to question the right of Missourior Kentucky to be represented here, and I suppose that their cases are exceptional because they did not legally secede. ell, sir, if those States did not legally secede, would it not be well to inquire into the legality of the similar attempts upon the part of other States, and if it should turn out that none of them have seceded legally, the natural inference would be that none of them could legally be denied that representation upon this floor and that immunity from Federal interference in their internal affairs which the constitution of the U.S. awards to them. Mr. President, I have been astonished, when I have read the speeches of men who are supposed to be endowed with common sense, to observe the subterfuges and expedients to which they have resorted to prove by specious and silly arguments that the southern States have actually seceded and dissolved this Union. The advocates of the finality of secession, in their attempts to prove that it has been consummated, notwithstanding its nn constitutionality, complacently adduce what they suppose a arallel in the case of murder, and suppose that they are demolishing all arguments against their theory, by complacently, and with apparent triumph, asserting that the laws prohibit murder, therefore murder cannot be committed. I pity the statesman or lawyer who is driven to such subterfuges of the pettifogger to sustain so transparent a fallacy. Murder, like other crimes is punished by a local law, and its perpetration is constantl occurring and being punished. The restriction finds aplace in our great fundamental law which declares that “ This constitution and the laws of the U.S. which shall be made in pursuance thereof and all treaties made or which shall be made. under the authority of the U.S shall bethe suprumclaw of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound therob, anythingin the constitution or lawsof any State to e contrary notwithstanding.” This is an assertion of the supremacy of the constitution, and when its violationis attempted the courts have never admitted the success of such attempts, but haveinvariably stain edthem as nullities, and void. because of their egal impossibility. I should hope that there are but few men in our country who are unable to comprehend the distinction between a criminal statute and a great constitutional restriction. It is urged as an objection against the recognition of those States that their Legislatures might not be in unison with some other States. The same objection might be urged against the internal policy of any of the other States of this Union, and only furnishes an argument in favor of the obliteration of all States, leaving the Legislation of what is now called the U.S. to be consummated by agreat centralized Government established here at the national capital. I have never been an advocate of State rights except when they were exercised in subordination to that paramount law known as the constitution of the U.S. I know that the States lately in rebellion are not the only ones which have at times attempted to assert such right in derogation of the constitution. We have had some late and costly experience in the way of ultra Staterights doctrine. Let us avoid the other extreme, and escape the evils likel to result from an attempted consolidation of althe rights of the States in a centralized Government. While the southern people were engaged in armed hostility to the Government and the constitution, no one was more anxious than myself to see their spurious government overthrown, and their military power broken, in order that the constitution and laws of the U.S. mightreassert their sway. To accomplish these ends I urged the adoption of a vigorous conscription law, with an abolition of exemption and commutation clauses, which, if adopted, would have crushed the military power of the South at an early period. I desired to infuse a vigor into the war which met with the stern reprobation of extreme partisans of all classes upon this floor. Now that our armies have been triumphant everywhere, and the people of those States lately in revolt are suing or mercy and pardon, it is not inmy nature to inflict humiliating outrages upon them, or to demand that they should be reducedto an equality with their late slaves. It is but natural, when we contemplate the enormity of the crime committed by those people in their mad attempt to destroy such a Government as ours, and which the most of their leaders were sworn to support, that we should desire to inflict upon them such punishments as are demanded by broken laws and a violated constitution; and I do not pretend to say that the great leaders in those terrible crimes which have plunged the country into mourning and involved us in a debt of gigantic proortions should escape at least some of the lega consequences of their own deliberate acts. Yet we 5 ould, as far as the mass of the people are concerned, extend to them that godlike attribute of mercy, and remember that Christianity, combined with modern civilization, has long since exploded the idea that the wholesale shedding oflilood is a panacea forcrimes againstthe State. Let us not leave a record behind us parallel to the state trials of England and the reign of terror in France, when it was supposed that the most terrible punishments worke the most salutary reforms. James H, with a facetions brutality, characterized the wholesale slaughter 1866. 293 which followed the abortive attempt of the Duke of Monmouth to revolutionize England, in 1685, as “the campaigns of the Lord Chief Justice Jetfreys in the west.” The name of that cruel and weakminded monarch has been handed down to posterity coupled with the most blood thirsty and atrocious villainics that ever disgraced the forms ofhuman justice, and the name of Jetfreys is only remembered to be detested 8nd execrated in every clime where civilization has extended. The terrible examples of blood I shed in France, during the reign of terror, have 1 met with a like condemnation. It is gratifying to all friends of popular freedom and constitutional liberty, when we reflect that in our late contest, where all the worst passions of human nature were aroused, and when our soldiers, as prisoners, had been treated with a barbarity utterly indefensible, that when our enemies were subdued and within our power there was no clamor for blood. Humanity and reason have with our people maintained a sway which in almost any other country have at some time been usurped by hatred, vengeance, and bloodshed. such an exhibition of magnanimity and mercy is alike creditable to our people and our institutions. Mr. President, inasmuch as the people of the South had no just cause for the commencement of the rebellion, let us be careful not to furnish them with one for the justification of similar attempts in the future, by forcing upon them taxation without representation, and t as placing them where the can avail themselves of the precedent sancti edby the struggles of our revolutionary fathers. Though they have been confessedly in the wrong, and have committed a great crime, let us not violate our own sense of justice by heaping upon them the very outrages which justified the Colonies in resisting a similar tyrannical exercise of power upon the part of GreatBritain. Look at this great question as you will, and from any standpoint, the conviction is forced Upon your mind that we are to constitutcin the future one great nation, and must live together as one people, professing the same reli "on, speaking the same language, and boun togetherby the traditions of the past and the hopes of the future. If this be true, is it not better for us to forget and forgive the past than to revive and keep alive the hateful animosities which have come so near causing our mutual destruction? [trust and believe that the time will come when all the fierce passions and hatred engen dered by the war will have subsided, and when we shall become a more united people than before, with homogeneous institutions, bound together by a common sentiment of love and admiration for free government and constitultional liberty. Posterity will view, through the medium of impartial history, the acts and achievements of the public men of the present age, and the time in which we now live and not our part will be referred to as the most porten tons of any period of the past. The terrible crisis throng which we have just passed will be referred to as demonstrating the power of a RFG, and as conclusive proof that the people have the capacity to administer and preserve it. Let us, then, in e language of the President, “east the disorders of the pastinto oblivion.” Letthe children of those who have met upon the field of carnage imitate the generosity of their fathers, who could shake hands and share the rude comiorts of the bivouac with those so lately their mortal enemies; and letus hope that both sections may cultivate and foster t iat spirit of conc“ord which shall make our Union in reality one and inseparable.”