Mr. SAULSBURY. The honorable Senator says that this 2nd clause of the not proposing the amendment to the constitution was intended to obviate the very cavil which the Senfrom Delaware now indulges in. The Senfrom Delaware is not given to; he generally speaks what he thinks and this is what he speaks; but this idea is not original with me. I do not claim to be the author of this doubt. Your own SecyState telegraphed to the provisional governor of SCarolina, Mr., when he urged that it might be contended that Congress had this power under that clause of that act, that his objection was “ queruleus, ” that the clause was restrictive in its character; in other words, that it was not meant to confer and could not be understood as conferring upon Congress any such power as that now claimed, but that it was in fact restrictive in its character. The SecyState is presumed always to be honest in what he says; he never cavils, everything he says he means, I suppose, and he has at an interpretation upon his clause in c ect accordance with that which I myself have advanced. Sir, we hear much about that amendment; and one word upon that subject and I have done. It is said that the constitutional amendment is adopted. It requires 3/4ths of the States to adopt the amendment. With my theory of this Government and the State governments, I might say it was adopted, having now received the ratification perhaps of 3/4ths of all the States; but how honorable Senators who hold that these southern States are not in the Union, are not States, and have not the power of selfgovernment, can contend that the constitutional amendment is adopted by and through the action of the people own South, I cannot imagine. It requires the votes of 3/4ths of the States; but how can votes in its favor be rewarded by the honorable Senfrom Massachusetts, and others of like opinion, when they come from communities which he and they say are not States, are not entitled to the control of their own domestic affairs, not entitled to legislate for themselves? It seems that they are States for one purpose and not States for any other purpose. s far as the interests of the back man are concerned, if their action be favorable to him, they are States, but for no other purpose. I have listened to a rent deal reasoning in the last our or 5 years, and I confess this is a pretty good specimen.