Mr. HENDRICKS. Mr. President, nothing bjit a sense of imperative duty induces me to address the Senate upon this occasion. The Constitution is to be changed: the foundations of the Government are to be disturbed; some of the old oak timbers are to be removed, and timber of recent growth is to be substituted. Upon the foundations fixed by the fathers our institutions have rested firmly and securely for 3 quarters of a century. They have stood unmoved by the contests of ambitious leaders, the angry strife of parties, and the rolling waves of war. In peace and in war; in the turbu lence of times of financial embarrassment, and the corruptions attendant upon the accumulation of greatwealth; in every possible state and condition of our society, the Constitution has borne the test; and the fact now stands conceded that it established a system of government entirely adapted to our wants and condition as a people. This is proven beyond cavil and question by the prosperity and individual happiness that attended our growth, and the eatness and power to which we attifined. the prosperity of the citizen, his security and happiness, and the might and grandeur of the nation attest the excellence of our form of government. The blessings of the past are our guarantee for the future if we but maintain our institutions as they are. And now, sir, in this the most unsafe period of our history; when the passions excited by the war are yet fierce; when sectional contro‘ vcrsies ruii high, and party strife is racing; when 11 States are absent from this C amber, and other sections, seizing the opportnnity, seek to aggrandize their power, an to fasten upon the country a partial and unequal policy; when the lust for power and gain carries men beyond the restraints of justice and right; at such a time I cannot remain wholly silent when Isee the hand of the artisan and the self constituted reformer lai upon the sacred work of the fathers. In such a case to s cak is a man’s duty, though none may heed. 3ut, Mr. President, it is hard work to speak when one knows in advance that no argument, however just and forcible and no appeal, however patriotic. can influence a single vote; that the authority and law of a political party is over every Senator of the majority; and that it remains now only to register the decree of the secret caucus. At the meeting of Congress, but before the President had delivered his message, and before his views had been officially communicated, the Republican members, in caucus. determined to raise a committee of 15 to “inquire into the condition of the States which formed the socalled confederate States of America, and report whether they or any of the m are entitled to be represented in either House of Congress.” In most indecent haste the resolution passed both branches, and the committee became fastened upon Congress and the country. because of its party origin, the work it had to do, and the secret character of its proceedings, that committee came to be known in the country as the f‘ revolutionary tribunal.” the “ direct cry, ” and the “ star chamber.” Its 1st report was made some months since, in which it was proposed to reduce the representation of the southern States, but by the aid of the distinguished Senfrom Massachusflts, [Mr. SUMNER, 1who submits to party restraints upon his judment with impatience, that measure was deeated. Its 2nd report is now upon our desks. It passed the House, but when it came under discussion in the Senate, and had to bear the test of the independent judment of Senators, it was found wanting, and its efcat became almost pertain. A 2nd defeat of a party programme could not be borne; its effect upon the fall elections would be disastrous. A caucus was called and we witnessed the astounding spectacle of the withdrawal, for the time, of a great legislative measure, touching the Constitution itself, from the Senate, that it might be decided in the secret councils of a party. For 3 days the Senate Chamber was silent, but the discussions were transferred to another room of the Capitol, with closed doors and darkened windows, where)arty leaders might safely contend for a political and party policy. when Senators returned to their seats I was curious to oberve who had won and who lost in the party lottery. The dark brow of the Senfrom NewHampshire [Mr. CLARK] was lighted with agleam of pleusurc. His proposed substitute for the 3rd section was the marked feature of the measure. But upon the lofty brow of the Senfrom Nova a [Mr. STEWART] there rested a cloud of disappointment and grief. His bantling, which he had named universal amnesty an universal suffrage, which he had so often dressed and undressed in the presence of the Senate, the dar ling olfs ring of his brain, was dead; it had died in the caucus; and it was left to the sad Senator only to hope that it might not be his last. Upon the serene countenance of the Senfrom Maine, the chairman of the 15, there rested the composure of the highest satisfaction; a plausible political platform had been devised, and there was yet hope for his art. Mr. President, I recognize the propriety and necessity of conventions and caucuses to reg ulate all questions of organization and political policy; butI have never felt myselfauthorized to subordinate my judgment as arepresentative of the people to the decision of anybody of men other than those I represent. To me it seems clear that each Senator owes it to the country to vote upon every important measureand every propOsed modification thereof according to the dictates of his own judgment and conscience. The Constitution requires that 2/3rds of the Senators, each answering for himself, shall agree to a proposed amendment before it can he submitted to the States. In this weighty business now before as what are the facts? The House sent us 4 pro positions to change the Constitution in one hi 1. Upon discussion it was found that probably no one of the propositions, nor any proposed modification thereof, could receive the required, vote. 2/3rds of the Senators, belonging 1 to one political party, retired from the Senate ! to consider and agree upon a bill. Each section or an entire bill may be adopted bya bare steps to change their great charter of liberty ‘I. heca0, serve that no out aid poses an additional article of 5 sections, ator, by goin into the secret caucus, agreed and became ound to vote for whatever the majority of the caucus should adopt. A see majority of the caucus, much less than 1/2 the Senate, but the entire 2/3rds must vote for it in the Senate. not because it is right, but because the majority of the caucus ins said so', and thus an amendment of the constitution may be adopted by the Senate when a majority of the body would vote against it if no party obligation rested upon them. What Senator would are propose to shut these doors against the people, that we in secret might take The people would not endure it, but in congregating 1000s would burst them open and emand to know all that was said and done upon a matter of such interest to them. The present pmpnsed i decided npln in sporadic. More secrot tben has ever been' known in this country. Cnic'fim“ " i: obliftisuifisecrecy e Senators n tevgn assumed fn‘effbmemamsiietomne tglggirn one‘rirtird that was spoken, or onelgte given: n ar ness'covcrst eproceeing. The secret could not be more profound had the conclave assembled down in the deep and dark caverns of the earth. If you change the Constitution have the people not the right to know how and why it is done, what was proposed and said, and how each Senator voted? Is it not their business? Or indeed have they masters, party chieftains, who may say to them “ We govern, you obey?” Isit not a fact that shall arrest attention that since this measure was reported from the caucus scarce an explanation has been conceded, and not one amendment offered or voted for by a single Senator who was in the caucus, so exacting and imperative is the obligation, and so literally is party authority obeyed. Sir. if the people can only come to know how this thing has been done, I believe they will refuse their indorsoment. 1 now propose a brief examination of the measure as it came from the caucus. It promaking that number of amendments or additions to the Constitution. For the 1st section the virtue is claimed that it defines citizenship of the U.S and of the States. I will read that part of the section: All persons born in the U.S and subicct to the jurisdiction thereof.are citizensof the U.S and of the State wherein they reside. What citizenship is, what are its rights and duties, its obligations and liabilities, are not defined or attempted to be defined; but these vexed questions are left as unsettled as during all the course of our history, when they have occupied the attention and taxed the learning of the depts of Government. But this is certain, that the section will add many millions to the class of persons who are citizens. We have been justly proud of the rank and title of our citizenship, for we understood it to belong to the inhabitants of the U.S. who were descended from the great races of people who inhabit the countries of Europe, and such emigrants from those countries as have been admitted under our laws. The rank and title conferred honor at home and secured kindness, respect, and safety everywhere abroad; but if this amendment be adopted we will then carry the title and enjoy its advantages in common with the negroes, the coolies, and the Indians. When the Senfrom Wisconsin proposed an amendment excluding the savage Indians of the forest I believe every Senator who had been in the caucus voted against it. No one was authorized to change a word that the caucus had used, but I am not quite sure that the people of Minnesota will regard the obligation to n caucus as a suflieient reason why the Senfrom that State [Mr. RAMSEY] should seek to confer the rank, privileges, and immunities of citizenship upon the cruel savages who destroyed their peaceful set. on the field of Buena Vista. tlements and massacred the people with circumstances of atrocity too horrible to relate. How our citizenship will be esteemed at home and abroad should this amendment be adopted we may judge by consulting the sentiments with which we regard Mexican citizenship. We feel that it defines a mixed population, made up of races that ought not to mingle whites, negroes, and Indians of whom 20,000 could not cope with 4,000 soldiers of the U.S. of pure wh the blood It was the work of many generations to place the name and fame 0t our citizenship so high that it ranked with the proudest titles on earth; but the mad fanaticism and partisan fury of a single year may so degrade it as there shall be “None so poor to do it reverence." The 2nd section new demands our at tention. The intent and effect of that section is to take away representation in Congress in all the States in which the right of voting is not given to the negroes. The purpose is to constrain every State to confer the right of voting upon the negroes; and in case of refusal, the penalty is loss of representation. The section does not rest upon the proposition that those whom the States treat as unfit to vote shall not be represented, for it is so framed as to continue to the northern and eastern States their 20 Representatives that are based upon anon votingpopulation. it is so framed, a so, as to continue to the States of Maryland, Tennessee, WestVirginia, and Missouri their full representation, although during the war the military power was so used in those States as to place the political power in the hands of a few, who so exercise it as to exclude the residue of the co le from the ballot box. You say that if the States treat the negroes as unfit to vote, then they shall not be voted for; that no representation shall be allowed for them; then, Insk, if in some of the northern States the foreigner is denied a vote for 5 years, whyshall he be voted for? If in Maryland, WestVirginia, Tennessee, and Missouri the majority are treated as unfit to vote, why shall the minority vote for them and be represented for them? Come, now, let candor an truth have full sway, and answer me, is it not because you believe that the few in these States now allowed to vote will send radicals to congress, and therefore you allow them to send ful delegations that it may add to your political party power? And I now submit to your patriotism, to your love of our country, if we have not come upon most dangerous times, when our Constitution is to be torn up and remodeled that apolitical party may make its power more secure, that it may hold on to the offices, and shape and control sectional policies. Mr. President, I now venture the prediction that this thing cannot succeed; that in this land of intelligence and love of liberty and right permanent power cannot be built upon inequality, injustice, and wrong. If the principle be right that none but voters ought to be represented, why do you not say so? If you think the negro ought to have the right of voting; if you are in favor of it, and intend it shall be given, why do you not in plain words confer it upon them? ltis much fairer than to seek it by indirection, and the people will distinctly understand on when you propose sqch a change of the constitution. I am not for it directly, nor will I coerce the States to its allowance. If conferred b the free action of the States, I am content. Within the limits of constitutional right and power I will support all measures necessary and proper for the protection and elevation of the colored race; measures safe and just to both races; but I do not believe that it is for the good of either race that they should be brought into close social and ohtical relations. God has marked the pecu inrities of each. He has at them asun der, audit is not the right, muclliiless the duty, of man to ioiu them together. Our institutions rest for their support upon the intelli gence and virtue of the people, and who may say that the untaught negroes, so lately manu mitted, are qualified to exercise the privileges and discharge the duties of an American citizen? Why then coerce the States to their enfranchisement? Mr. President, it is my duty to call attention to the ecnliar and involved form of expression 0. opted in this section. Instead of excluding from the enumeration the class to whom the elective franchise is denied, which would be easily understood. it is provided that H the basis of representation in such State shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens not less than 21 years of age in such State.” Why the abandonment of that which is of plain mean ing for that which is involved and difficult? This measure is to go to the people for their judgment, and should have been clothed in lain, honest language. As a party platform, it may serve a purpose that the meaning is covered; but as a part of the people’s Constitution its obscurity is a vice. One needs to be a mathematician to be sure that he comprehends the full force of the proposition. But I will again venture the opinion that it means as if it read thus: no State shall be allowed a representation on a colored population unless the right of votingis given to the ncgroes preseating to the States the alternative of loss of representation or the enfranchisement of the negrocs, and their political equality. In Indiana there are many 1000s o the colored race, the number having atly increased during the net 5 years because the constitution and laws of the State have not been executed. The policy of the State has been to discourage their immigration, and that policy has been dictated by the desire to protect the white labor. The presence of negroes inlarge numbers tends to degrade and cheapen labor, and the people have dreen unwilling that the white laborer shall be compelled to compete for employment with the negro. To confer the right ofv'oting is to encourage their immigration into the State and to defeat what experience has shown to be a wise policy. Now, is that State to be denied a representation upon that population because she will not make the negro a voter, while NewYork continues to hold the 4 members in Congress to which she is entitled because of a white population to which she denies the right of voting? We could not with patience 1.1 cc to that. The colored population of New in land is so small that she is not perceptibly a ected, whether she allows or disallows to them the elective franchise, but in the agricultural regions of the West and South they are numbered by 1000s and millions, and in many localities they are so numerous that to give them the elective franchise is to throw public affairs into their hands. Thatis impossible, and the adoption of this amendment is to strip agriculture of its proper voice and influence in Congress and in the election of the President and relatively to add to the already swollen power of NewEngland. Were a blow aimed at the representation of Illinois, would I not raise my arm to avert it? And why, sir? Because it is her right under the compact of the fathers and also because the interests of Indiana and Illinois are identical; they are both agricultu ral States, and the members of Congress who guard and protect the rights and interests of either State cannot neglect those of the other. The same is true of all the agricultural States of the West and the South. Discussing this question at an earlier day of the session, I had occasion to say: “The Statesand country that rest upon the Ohio and Mississippi rivers and their tributaries have a common interest. They cannot ceaseto be agricultural States. The plow minit turn wealth up to the men of the West. Shall we so permanently arrange the representation of the country that nuriculture cannot hold up its head? Shall we so permanently adiust representation as that thespindle and the loom shall always be more reductive and honorable than the plow and the liarrow? Sir. I do not consent to it; and without any reference to sectional feel“: a and son imcuts I ask for the West simply equaity in the legislation of Congress. Now, Mr. President if it is right to change the representationin the HoRep that is. to disturb the foundations of the Government so as to readjust representation and as to make Senators elaim. it equal and just, why is it not squall right tvoedryisturb the representation in the Senate? know well the reply Wlll bethat the constitutionitself forbids an amendment of that instrument in respect to representation in the Senate; but, sir, the power that made that provision can unmake it; the power to amend the Constitution can reach that very provision and changethe representation in the Senate. I know it is said that representationin the Senateis one of the Federal features of the Government: but that argumenthas lost its forcewhen we are taught in these latter timesvthat State rights, are not to be respected and that all power is new in the Federal Government. Suposewe undertake to maherepresentation in the Senateequal. he would it stand? The 6 NewEngland States. with a population of 3,135,253 have 12 Senators in this body, whil ethe 6 great agricultural Statesof the west Ipdiana. Oliiu. [lline is, Iowa, entuc and MlSSOUflThaVB a population of 8, 414, 525w.it a representation of 12 Senators. With nearl 3 times the population of NewEngland, we have the same representation“ If those States have this advantage in this body.is it fair to try to cut 08' the representation of agriculture in theother endof thisCa itol? While Indiana has apopulation of 1, 350.43, hodoIsland a glorious, ga lant little State thusa population of 74.:30. So far as representationin the Senateiscon cerned, one man in BhdIsland has a voice and power in the legislation of this country equal to 8 gun in Indiana, Taking the entire NewEngland States. oneman inIjiew ugland has the voice and power in legislationin the Senateof nearly 3 men in the West. Is that right is that instawhenlyou are talking about equalit of representation? do not wantto changethat eaturein OUR GOVGIDIDEDI. I wish to stapd by the State representation as our fathers established it. I do not want to take an of tahgerpeoelditsihcaelmpoigwhetrh from NewEngland thatourfat ers I will stand by their representation as firmly as they will. but I do not like that they she] ask to reduce the representation of the estan Southwest." Mr. President, I am aware of the plausible argument that by the results of the war the slaves have been made free, and as the Constitution now stands will all be counted, and thus by the rebellion the representation of the South, so far as it rests upon the colored population, will be increased 2/5ths. Perhaps a sulficient answer is found in the fact that the slaves were not made free by the voice of the South, but by the constitutional amendment which was demanded by the North; and that the North cannot well complain of a consequence of her own act. But, sir, in any view is this a sufficient reason why we should not on ydeny to the southern States the increased representa‘tion caused by the freedom of the slaves, but also take from them the 3/5ths representation which they have always enjoyed under the Constitution? But, sir, if you will amend the Constitution at this most unfortunate time, and while the States most to be affected are unrepresented, I will meet you upon a ground you cannotquestion, and will propose that the southern States shall have no increase of representation by reason of the freedom of the slaves; and to that end I offer the following amendment, so that the section shall read: Representatives shall be apportioned amoiig the several States which may be included within the Union according to their respective numbers, counting the wholc numher of persons in each State.excluding Indians not taxed and peluding. also.two5th s ofsuch personsas have been discharged from involuntary service by any reclamation of the POTUSor the amendmentof the constitution of the U.S. sincetheyear 1861 and to whom the electivefranchise may be denied. If, new, the objection is made in good faith that the evil you would avoid is the increase of southern representation by the freedom of the slaves, then this amendment is agreeable to you and will be accepted. But it will not be accepted if the purpose reall is to reduce the representation of the agricultural sections and thus relatively increase the power of the manufacturing interests, and perpetuate a polic that enriches the capital of one section and ears heavily upon the capital and labor of another. For 5 years no opportunity has been lost to build up the interests of the eastern States. With that end in view tariff and internal tax laws and drafts have been adjusted, and banking capital distributed; so that now almost. every investment of capital in that section yields from 15 to 100%. profit,Wliile in Indiana and Illinois the bushel of 'down that ought to be worth to the farmer 50 cents, being manufactured into whisky is taxed finght dollars; the bushel yielding 4 gallonS.R.President, I rejoice in the prosperity of any section when it is the result of legitimate trade, under equal laws, for then it ist c pros perity of the whole country; but] call upon western Senators to hesitate before they surrender a representation that is a reliable support to our great interest, agriculture. The 3rd section provides that no person shall ever hold any office under the YU.S., or under any State, who, having at an time taken the oath prescribed by the Constilution as an officer of the U.S or of any State shall engawe in rebellion or give aid and comfort to the public enemies. The proposition to exempt from the operations of the section those who against their will were compelled to participate in the rebellion, was voted down; and the section now stands from all offices every person of the edxecslcurdibineg class who either voluntarily or involuntarily became connected with the rebellion; and that, too, notwithstandin the party may be under the shield of the resident’s ardon. This harsh and sweeping measure wi linclude man excellent men whose services now in the wor of reconciliation would be of the greatest value to the country men who displayed heroic courage in standin out against the secession movement, but who afterward yielded obe dience to and served the established government defacto. This measure is in the spirit that pursued the supporters of Cromwell and the parliament after the Restoration. It is in the spirit of vengeance after men are beaten and have surrendered, and cannot brin a blessing to our country. Senators saythatt 0 measure is not penal in its character. Why not? When pardoned are not these men eligible to State and Federal offices? And do you not propose to strip them of their eligibility because of the ir crime?Isuppose the Senfrom Illinois [Mr. Tussinutn] by referring to the criminal code of his own State will find it prescribed as a “ punishment for crime that parties shall be disfranchised and rendered incapable of holding any office of trust or refit." That is as much a punishment as the hne or the imprisonment, and is found in the criminal codes of many of the States. It is a penalty when the court and jury strip the accused ofhis right to hold office. What is it, then, when done by Congress? The Senfrom WestVirginia [Mr. W11. LEY] says that it is a measure of safety for the future a precaution. So the judge tells the convicted criminal the law esteems him unfit to hold office, and as a precaution the right is taken from him. As a penalty for crime this measure is expostfacto; and if it were a measureof ordinary legislation would therefore be unconstitutional. Mr. President, do you think there will enough good come of this to justify us in departing from the principle which is found in the Constitution of ptheU.S and of ever State in the Union, thata man shall be punished only according to the law in force at the time the act is done? The 4th section provides that the public debt shall remain inViolate. Who has asked us to change the Constitutidn for the benefit of the bondholders? Are theyso much more meritorious than all other classes that they must be is.ecially provided for in the Constitution? r, indeed, do we distrust ourselves, and fear that We will all become repudiators? A provision like this. I should think, would excite distrust, and cast a shade on public credit. But poi ha s the real purpose is so to hedge in the bond holders by constitutional provision as that they never may be taxed; that Congress can never assent to their taxation, and so that 3 billions of capital may bear no portion of the public burdens. such would be the effect of this amendment. Who has attacked public credit, or questions the obligation to pay the public (is t? Are the bond holders not receiving their interest, even in advance, and in gold? Why then do they ask this extraordinary guarantee? They “trusted the good faith of the people, and there is no breach of that faith. When things entirely unusual are asked, it is well for the people to inquire, why it is, what is the purpose, and how far will it carry us? The provision about bounties and pensions is but u. bliiid.' The man who wrote the section knew that pensions and bounties need no guarantee; that their payment is secured not only by law, but there is also the pledge of the honor and the hearts of the people. Mr. President, I stand by the public credit, which is public honor and individual safety. But, sir, how shall we 11hold our credit and secure our creditors? y just laws, by equal taxation, by distributing equally over the entire nation the burdens of Government, that they may rest upon the shoulders of all sections and interests. Then there will be no discontent, no grumbling, but a satisfied co ple, in their strength, will carry every obigation of the Government until discharged , ind public credit will then be as firm as the solid foundations of this Capitol. The 5th section declares the debts contracted in aid of the rebellion illegal, and prohibits their payment. Mr. President, who is so stu pid as to have supposed these debts legal, or that they had any valid existence for one hour after the defacto government of the confederate States ceased to exist? Who is so silly as to fear their payment? It was amusin to observe that the Senfrom Michigan, Mr. HOWARD] in making an or iiment for this section, showed that it was wholly unnecessary, for he read one of the confederate notes, and upon its face it appeared that it was not to become due and payable until 6 months after the independence of the confederate States should be recognized by the U.S. Will that note nowin the Senator's cket ever become due? The Senator lau bed); the sug estion. The debtor has cease to exist; the ebt, according to its own provisions, can never become due, and each of the southern States has by constitutional provision repudiated it and prohibited the payment of any.ortion thereof. If there ever was adeffinet an buried debt, without legal or moral force, the recognition and payment of which is in every way impossible. it is the debt, the continued existence of which it is now proposed to recognize by a prohibition of payment in the Constitution. The least that may be said of this section is that it would be harmless, but I would regret to see the face of the Constitution marred by a provision so unnecessary and trifling. The 6th and last section provides that congress shall have power to enforce, by appro.riate legislation, the provisions of the article. UVhen these words were used in the amendment abolishing slavery they were thought to, be harmless, but during this session there has“. been claimed for them such force and of meaning as that Congress might invadescope the jurisdiction of the States, robthem of their reserved rights and crown the Federal government with absolute and despotic power. As construed this provision is most dangerous. Without it the Constitution possesses the vitality and vigor for its own enforcement through the appropriate depts. Mr. President, have now briefly examined the provisions of this article, and cannot resist the conviction that some of them are useless, while others are vicious and dangerous. Nor l can I resist the conviction that this measure i (I pressed, not because of an exigency in affairs, but to carry out a party irogrammoeu.r, The President has his policy. on oppose him. You charge him with usurpation, while at the same time you are straining every brace and timber in the Constitution to secure to yourselves absolute control; indeed, you reach out beyond the Constitution, and b amendment a proceeding to be resor to only upon rare and solemn occasions you grasp at er, and, with the avidity of hunger, clutch power. Why this reaching after power on your part? Is it not enough that for 5 years you have held all the offices of the country, and through the favoritism of the Depts your partisans and followers have grown rich and powerful? Or is it so sweet to governmen that the possession of power is indispensable to your happiness? Upon what fact may on charge the lgresident With usurpation? When he came into office he found 11 great States and 8 million people under his absolute sway and government. His authority was as absolute and supreme as is that of the Czar of Russia over his extended dominious. The persons and property of the people were under is control. In his ands there seemed to be the issues of life and death. Did he like you clutch this power and seek ta extend it? Did he say it is sweet to govern. No, Senators; laying down absolute power, he said to the people, “Place our States again in practical relations with the U.S. an govern ourselves; I will be the President, exercising only those powers with which the Constitution has clothed me.” I submit to the candid judgment of men if this was not an exhibition of sublime and heroic devotion to principle and renunciation of power? And when you handed him the Freedmen’s Bureau bill, and authorized him to appoint an army of office holders to fill the who 0 country with his partisans, when you offered to give him a patron age such as no man had ever before held, he refused it all; but in accordance with his convictions of duty vetoed the bill. Twice he refused the crown of power, not, like Czesar pushing it gently from him with the back of is hand, but firmly and in the face of most formidable 0 position. The position of the President audithose who support his Adminis tration upon the great question now agitating the country is so well and accurately expressed by an eloquent friend, that I will bor row his words: “1. That no State has the legal right t6 sever its co“nnection with the Federal Government. 2. Failing in such an attempt theyremainin their ancient places.fixed. immovable and shorn of none of“their attributes asSlates. 3 The right to immediaterepresentationin con(:33as living. lawful, and legitimate membersoftho o"vernment. 4. That the american Unionis restored and stands unbroken, without flaw or blemish, and with domestio tranquillity in all her bordersin the presence of the nations of the earth.". Mr. President, upon this great question of a restored Union we go to the country. The Army has done all its work, there is nothing more for it to do, and the sons of the Repair lie have returned to their homes. All opposition to the authority of the Government of the U.S. has ceased, and peace reigns throughout our borders. Shall the Union in all respects stand restored, and we be again a united and powerful people? Shall trade and commerce return again to their ancient channels, and prosperit attend all the pursuits of the people? on may throw your selves across the athway of the people, and by shouting copper read and sympathizer hope to frighten the timid, but you will not be able to check or turn them in their onward progress, because they now follow a banner upon which is written in letters of light “reconciliation and Union.”