Mr. POLAND. Mr. President, the few observations which I propose to make are addressed to the general merits of the proposition which is before the Senate, but some of them are addressed to the very point of this pendiu amendment. I read in a morning paper t iat it was expected that I would present some important and new views upon the subject. The views that I shall present, Mr. President, may be important in the sense that almost any view that any man may present who has a vote to give on such a subject is important; but that I Bllflll be able to say, after six months discussion of this subject, anJrth.ing new is more than I expect. President, all the questions involved v the proposed amendments to the Constitution have been so elaborately and ably discussed on former occasions during the present session that I do not feel at liberty to attempt to argue them at length andin detail. I do not propose to do more than to state, in the shortest and lainest manner I am able, some of the reasons or my action upon the propositions submitted to us by the committee. The clause of the 1st proposed niucudment, that ‘fiio State shall make or enforce any law whieh slinllflbridw the privileges or immunities of citizens of nthe U.S., " secures nothing beyond jYllnLm Iii tendeduby the orirriua provision in the Constitution, that “ the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and impijinitigspf citizens in the sev." 4. But the radical difference in the social systems of the several States, and the great extent to which the doctrine of State rights or State sovereignty was carried, induced mainly, as I believe, by and for the protection of the peculiar system of the South, led to a practical repudiation of the existing provision on this subject, and it was disregarde in many of the States. State legislation was allowed to Over ride it, and as no express power was by the Constitution granted to Congress to enforce it, it became really a dead letter. The great social and political change in the southern States wrought by the amendment of the Constitution abolishing slavery and by the overthrow of the late rebellion render it eminently proper and necessary that Congress should be invested with the power to enforce this provision throughout the country and compel its observance. Now that slavery is abolished, and the whole people of the nation stand upon the basis of freedom, it seems to me that there can be no valid or reasonable objection to the residue of the 1st proposed amendment: Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property Without due process of law. nor to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law. It is the very spirit and inspiration of our system of government, the absolute foundation upon which it was established. It is essentially declared in the DeclarIndep and in all the provisions of the constitution. Notwithstaning this we know that State laws exist, and some of them of very recent enactment, in direct violation of these principles. congress has already shown its desire and intention to uproot and destroy all such partial State legislation in the passage of what is called the civil rights bill. I‘hepower of congress to do this has been doubted and denied y persons entitled to high consideration. It certainly seems desirable that no doubt should he left existing as to the power of Congress to'eiiforcc principles lying at the very foundation of all republican government if they be denied or violated by the States, and I cannot doubt but that every Senator will rejoice in aiding to remove all doubt upon this power of Congress. The 2nd article of the proposed amendments involves many considerations, and opens a much wider field for discussion. I suppose it is the purpose of the Union Republican ma. jority in Congress, when they shut have agreed upon articles of amendment to the Constitution to be proposed for adoption, to say to the southern States which seceded, joined the confederacy, and waged war against the national Government, that as preliminary to their again becoming acting members of the national Union by their Sens&Reps in congress the must adopt or ratify such amends merits. ndeed, one of the bills reported by the committee, accompanying the proosed amendments, proposes this directly, an is a art'of the committee’s plan of reconstruction. this objected in the outset to this that the States and people who have remained loyal to the Government during the war for the suppression of the rebellion have no right to affix such or any condition whatever to their return; that, having laid down their arms and ceased active hostilities against the nation, and acknowledged their allegiance and willingness to obey the national laws, no reason exists why their representatives should not be immediately admitted to their seats in Congress and i ticipnle in the legislation for the nation; a' that to refuse this is really to deny to those tes their proper constitutional rights. 0 public or political question has ever drisen in this country that has excited moreingenious and earnest debate than the legal and political condition of the seceded States after the suppression of the rebellion by the military power of the nation. The discussion began long before the war ended, and there was occasion for any practical up lication, and it has continued ever since. I purpose to go into this question or to attempt to prove by argument that those States did or did not lose or forfeit their corporate existence as States by their acts of secession and rebellion, or that they are now in or out of the Union. I may say, however, that I was never able to see as clearly as others could anything so illogical and absurd in the doctrine that these States actually forfeited their rights as States and lapsed into the condition of Territories belonging to the Government, requiring reorganization and readmission into the nion as much as if they had never been admitted. Their acts of secession were of course entirely void, and of themselves had no effect; but when the great majority of the people of these States abandoned and forswore al allegiance to the Union, formed themselves into a hostile confederucy, filled every official place in the State with enemies of the Union, and then used all the official machinery of the State, in common with the personal efforts of the great majority of the people, in carrying On for years a.bloody war against the nation, it seems to me almost absur to say that the nation might not, if it so elected, treat. them as having forfeited all rights to be considered existing States in the Union, and treat them when subdued as so much unorganized territory. The difficulty now lying in the way of taking this ground and basin the reconstruction or restoration of the seceing States upon it is that the national Government has hitherto, from the beginning of the rebellion down to the present time, proceeded upon the opposite theory; that is, that the States, as such, still existed; that the corporate life of a.State was not lost or destroye by the passage of ordinances of secession or the prosecution of armed hostility by the majority of its citizens. All depts of the national Government having for so long acted upon this ground, it would be exceedingly embarrassing to unsuy fore 0 not = and undo so much that has been said and done; indeed, it could hardly be done without greatly aggravatin and enhancing the difficultieswith which the subject of restoration is now beset. Nothing short of absolute necessity could now justify the Government in ignoring State existence in the members of tie lute confederacy and reducing them to the condition of unorganized territories. Is it necessary for the protection and safety of the always loyal part of the nation to do this? May we not without this require such guarantees and conditio s from the seceding States, prior to allowing them to participate in the general direction and government of the nation, as in our judgment the national safety requires? By the most formal and solemn acts oflegislation these States withdrew or attempted to withdraw from the national Union; they abjured all allegiance to the national Government; they withdrew their Sens&Reps from the national Legislature they formed themselves into a separate and hostile confed erecy, of which each of these States was a constituent member; and for 4 years as a separate nation of States, and by the individual action of the great majorit of their people, they mudemost cruel an unrelenting war against the loyal part of the nation. Now, conceding that all this did not destroy the corporate eXistenee of each or either of these States as a legal essence, it must. be ndmitted that all actual existence of legal relation or connection between those States and the national Union was severed and destroyed. It cannot be claimed that while these States were acting as States in the confederacy and occupying the position of armed and hostile belligerents toward the U.S. they were at the same time entitled to claim and exercise the rights of States in the Union; to be represente in its Legislature, and participate in its Government. We succeeded by our superior physical power in overthrowing and crushing this hostile confederacy, and compelled them to lay down their arms. Now, before these States can resume their former places in the Union loyal State governments must be instituted and take the place of the disloyal ones that have existed, and then the legal relation and connection between them and the General Government must be restored by some power or dept of the General Government. Now, in what dept of the national Government does this power rest to say when the people of the insurgent States have returned to loyalty, whether the State governments set up anew are realy and truly loyal, and then to restare the broken and severed legal relations between them and the Union? Clearly, in my judgment, it must rest in and with the lawmaking power of the Government, the representatives of the States and the people, the 2 Houses of Congress. In the progress of reconstructing or restoring these Ratesto loyalty and their former position in the Union, the executive dept of the Government has assumed to dictate terms and conditions to those States, which they comlied with. The terms and conditions im ose were wise and just in themselves, and do not take it upon me now to say they were not rightfully exacted by the Executive. But I do say that, in my judgrnent, there is far more ground of doubt as to the rightful power of the merely executive branch of the Government to do this than there is as to the power of Congress, the substantial lawmaking power of the nation, to exact the some or other like conditions. It has been said that unless these States have really forfeited their State existence and are out of the Union, we have no more right“: exact or impose conditions to their return than we have to impose similar terms upon NewYork or Ohio; that a State cannotrco'u'in treason or forfeit its existence by the commision of crime. But there cannot well be e. State, exercising and parfqt'pin Wilma“!!! as such, without v, eo end“! idea Of:.the existsneeof's ob7, flu! we!!!“ in loyalty to the Union, and the people who inhabit it at the same time armed and hostile rebels, is certainly an anomaly. Now, the people of these States are the same who have been rebels, the same with whom we have been at war for years, and from whom we have just succeeded in wresting their arms. Now, can it be possible that we are at. once bound to admit these people to actively participate with us in administering the general Government; that we have no more power or right to test their loyalty or require security. for it than we have of the peop e of a State which has always bebn loyal and true? It seems to me to be confounding all distinction between right and wrong, between innocence and crime, between loyalty and treason. It is said there is no warrant in the Constitution for such a course, and therefore we cannot do it. The truth is, the framers of the Constitution never contemplated such a state of things and made no provision for it. The Constitution, to be sure, provides for the suppression of insurrections; but evidently this never contemplated an extensive rebellion so formidable as to produce for years a division of the nation and a separate de facio government. The real question is, not whether there is any express warrant in the Constitution for it, but whether there is anything in the letter or spirit of the Constitution that forbids it. In my judgment there is not. It is sanctioned by rinei les of substantial justice and right, an by the great law of self protection and defense, which is as applicable to communities and nations as to individuals. I conclude, then, that there is no objection to the exercise by Congress of the power to impose any condition or limitation to the return of these States to participate in the government of the nation, which shall be justin itself, I and necessary for the safety and welfare of the nation. If, as I insist, we have the right to require of these States suitable and sufficient conditions or uarantees, and that, too, by amendments of the fundamental law, then several questions present themselves upon the amendment proosed. Do we need this amendment for our juture protection and the peace and safety of the nation? Does this amendment furnish it sufficiently? Is it doin any wrong or injustice to the white people of the South? Is it just to the negro population of the South? This amendment leaves the Generalbasis of representation, as fixed bytie Constitution origi nally, upon numbers or population. In some of the discussions of this subject in this Chamber it has been strenuously insisted that this is not the true and just basis upon which representation should be based, but that it should rest upon the basis of voters. I entirely disagree with those who have argued for this new doctrine, and in my mind it is clear that the existing basis is the only true one, the only one consistent with the true idea of a representative republican government. The question‘s not, perhaps, directly involved in this amendment, but still it is not wholly aside from my line of argument. All the people, or all the members of a State or community, are equally entitled to protection; they are all subject to its laws; they must all share its burdens, and they are all interested in its legislation and government. Notwithstanding this no State or community professing to be republican allows all its people to vote. Every one fixes for itself some rule which, in its judgment, willfurnisli a body of voters or electors who will most wisely and safely represent the wishes and interests of the whole people. The right or franchise of voting has, probably, been more widely extended in these American States than in any other professed republican Government, but in the most liberal of these it has always been confined to a small minority of the whole people. In none of our States have females, or males under 21 years of age, ever been allowed to vote. In many of the States the right of vot mg has been restrained within much narrower l limits. Persons coming to this country and establishing their permanentresidence here are required to remain 5 years and then to go through an established process of naturalization before they are allowed the privilege of voting. Yet we all know that many females are far better qualified to vote intelligently and wisely than many men who are allowed to vote; and the same is true of man males under 21, and of foreigners w i0 have not resided here for the period of live years. The truth is that the whole system of suffrage of any republican State is who ly artificial, founded upon its own ideas of the number and class of persons who will best represent the wishes and interests of the whole people. The right of suffrage is not given to a particular class because they have any greater interest in the government, or because they have any more natu ral right to it than others, nor to exercise it for themselves and in their own behalf, but is given to them as fair and proor exponents of the will and interests of the whole community, and to be exercised for the benefit and iir the interest of the whole. The theory is that the fathers, husbands, brothers, and sons to whom the right of suffrage is given will in its exercise be as watchful of the rights and interests of their wives, sisters, and children who do not vote as of their own. While the rules of suffrage are different in the different States, the lan of basing representation in the national legislature upon the number of voters in each would be manifestly unjust; it might with the same repriety be based upon the number of members in the Legislature of each State. But if the rules of suffrage were the same in all the States, the adoption of such arule for national representation would be manifestly unjust. The Union contains many very recently settled States, and by reason of the great extent of unsettled country all still have, such must be the case for many years to come. These new States to a great extent are settled by em igrati n from the older States, and it has been and V3" ever continue the case that a much larger proportion of this emivration are males. 'Lhe consequence is that the newly settled States contain a very much larger proportion of males than the older States, and therefore a much larger ratio of voters. Can it be justly claimed that 5,000 people in Nevada or Colorado should have the same voice in the Government as 20,000 people in Massachusetts or NewYork, even though the number of males above 21 were the same in each ‘I I have said more than was necessary upon this particular point. By the existing Constitution the States holding slaves, in addition to their other population, were entitled to have 3/5th s of their slaves counted in aseertainin their share of representation. B the amendment of the Constitution abolishing slavery, which was really one of the results of the war, this entire mass of slave population, counting by millions, were made rec, and as the Constitution stands the States where slavery existed would now be entitled to have the remaining 2/5th s added to their numbers for representation, although no one of them all is allowed to vote. This very fact, it seems to me, furnishes a very sufficient reason for a readjustment of representation among the States, and an an swer to the often repeated question, wh amend the Constitution at all? li ith no amen ment on this subject the late slave States come into the lower House of Congress with a much larger representation than ever before. Is it safe to do this, is it just to the loyal portion of the nation who have borne such immense bur dens to maintain its existence? If not, I hold we are not bound to encounter any such peril. For a long.eriod of years sectional hatred toward the orth had been cultivated in the South, in conse uenee of our dislike and condemnation of their wicked and antirepublican system of human slavery. This feeling was excited and fomented by the arts of am bitious and designing men till it broke out in 1 a gigantic rebellion for the purpose of separating from us and forming a separate government for themselves the most terrible and bloody civilWar the world has ever seen, lasting for 4 years; characterized by almost innumerable instances of cruel and barbarous hate on the part of the insurgent States. We finall succeeded in putting down the rebellion, overthrowing the government they had set up and adding the mortification of total defeat of their cause to their other reasons for hating us and disliking our Government. These people have submitted to the national Government gecause they have been compelled by force to 0 so. But have we any evidence that justifies the belief that they are now ready to yield willing allegiance to the Government and obedience to its laws? All the mass of evidence taken by the reconstruction committee, the tone and sentiment of the almost entire southern press, the information derived from private sources, concur in showin that as yet no such thing exists to any considerable extent, and that the feeling of hostility to the nationafGovernment and northern people is as great now as it was while the war was raging, and that the submission to the laws and authority of the Government is the enforced submission to superior power. Does anyone doubt that if an opportunity was now offered for an effectual separa tign it would not be embraced by a far larger majorit of the southern people than that by which t cir acts of secession were adopted? Looking at the circumstances we could hardly expect to find it otherwise now, and I respect those people more for the open and undisguised avowal) of their sentiments than I should if they hy ocriticiilly pretended to acuiesce cheerful y and rejoicingly in their own efcat. We must rely upon time, emigration, the intercourse of business, interchanges of kindness and good will, and especially the beneficent and protecting care an influence of the government to foster and build up a feeling of attachment to the Union and to allay the bit terness and asperity now existing. In this view it has seemed to me that it was not so desirable as many others have believed it to be that great haste should be made in their restoration, and that our reunion with them would be much more likely to be harmonious and lasting if done coolly and deliberately than if we rushed to embrace each other. But the question is, whether in the present state of facts it is safe and just to the nation to admit these States to participate in the government of the nation upon such terms as will incur any hazard of their being able to take the control of it, and if they choose in'ure or overthrow it? I have heard it aske what harm they could do if admitted to full representation in Congress and were able by political affiliations and alliances to centre the legislation of the nation. will refer to but one of the many thin which might be most disastrous to the peop e of the loyal States. To carry on the war and suppress the rebellion we have incurred a debt to the enormous amount of $3,000,000,000. The great bulk of this debt is held by the people of the North. Much of it is held by capitalists, but not all, by any means. It has entered, into all the transactions of society and business. 'All public trusts, whether educational, charitable, or religions, are invested in it, as well as nearly all private trusts for widows, mine rs, or others. he entire currency of the country is composed of it or based upon it. In addition to this it is most extensive] held among the people; in my own State I now that almost every man who had any money to invest, whether the amount was great or small, now holds it in Government bonds. Indeed, I think I may say that except what is invested in business or in business our orations. the great mass of the money capita of the North is now in the national securities. To pay even the interest on this debt and our immense annual pension list will require taxation for us of unexampled severity for many years to come. Now, this debt has all been incurred in putting down the southern rebellion; our great pension list is to reward or reimburse those who have suffered on our side in the same cause. The war to a great extent has devas Stated the South; very many have been made poor and destitute; they have lost their slaves, whose value they counted by 1000s of millions; almost every one suffered loss b the bubble of the rebeldebt; they have their t on sands of maimed and disabled men and their 1000s of widows and o hans dependent upon them for an lport, and tor whom no provrsion can or wi be made by the nation. Under these circumstances will they not be restive under our heavy taxation to pay our national debt and our pensioners? Say what we will, say what they will, the truth is that if they can avoid aiding in its payment thhy will do so, and pretexts enough will be found in some fancied or pretended injustice to them on our part to justify such action on theirs. In saying this I do not mean to assert that these people are more faithless or less sensible of obligation than we are, for I have very little doubt that under the same circumstances we should do the same thing. It is hardly in human nature to do otherwrse. It is said we ought to be magnanimous and tmstful toward these peeple; put full faith in their promises and oaths; that we have no right to assume they will not kee them. I would certainly extend all magnanimity to them. I would trust all their oaths and promises which I believed they would keep. But I should hardly desire to trust them to fulfill a romise which under the same circumstances fear I should myself find some excuse for breaking. But I do not think we are s eeially called upon to trust or put faith in o cial and governmental oaths taken by our southern friends. Can they ever be more solemnly bound to the Government and to yield it their allegiance than they were at the very moment they seceded and violated their oaths‘! Our faith can hardly be strengthened by our experience. This class of oaths has not in latter years been found very binding on the individual conscience, and of them we may say, with Hudibras“Oaths are but words and words but wind. Too feebleimplementsto bind, And hold with deedsproportion so As shadows to the substanoedo." But what have we to fear from them if admitted into Congress with all the representation they 'would have without any amendment of the Constitution? The North would still greatly outnumber them, and could always vote them down. It is sneeringly asked, do you not consider yourselves their equals? Are on such cowards and oltroons as to be afrai of being beaten in deate and overthrown by these southern gentlemen with such odds in your favor? this not hard to answer these questions in fact, but it is.hard and humiliating to be compelled to acknowledge where the real danger lies. For many years prior to the rebellion the North had a large numerical superiority over the South, and a much larger delegation in conress. She was still more largely her superior in wealth, in business, and in all material and scientific advancement. But uotwithstandin all these advantages to the North, the Seat ruled the nation. Vhy? The answer is short: by the aid of her northern allies. To go back no further than the war of the rebellion: did we not have many men in the North who sympathized with the rebels; who counseled resistance to the draft, and threw every obstacle in the way of the successful grosecution of the war; who rejoiced at our efeats and rebel victories? Did not a large party in a ntional convention resolve that the war for the oppression of the rebellion was a failure and ought to he ate ed? Now, if men could be found who wouldpdo this when the nation was in the very mortal agony to preserve its existence, is it uneharitable to suppose that to make a successful political alliance and get into power, men would not be found who would unite on a platform of repudiation of the national debt? Why. in my part of the c“ountry the war cry of a certain party has been Taxation of the national securities l" which was buta partial repudiation of the contract of the Government. I do not desire to dwell u n this point; it is not a pleasant theme either for reflection or discussion. Considerin the immense pecuniary stake the people of the loyal States have in the national securities, and the universal disaster and calamity which would attend their repudiation, or even any great distrust of them, it behooves us to be cautious and sure that we open no possible door for the entrance of such danger. In my judgment, the admission of the southern representatives without such an amendment of the Constitution as the new and changed condition of southern population requires in order to be just, would, subject as to that very peril; indeed, that it would to come. I would prevent it. Will this amendment, if adopted, furnishthe needed protection; or in other words, will the South, even with the aid of northern allies, be able to obtain the control of the Government or of Congress? If these States refuse to extend the right of suffrage to the colored men their representation will be confined to the white population. This number, especially of males above 21 years of age, has largely decreased during the war, and this deduction, together with that to be made for the 3/5th s of the slave population, would so reduce the congressional representation of the seceding States that no reasonable fear need be entertained that even with the aid of northern allies would they be able to obtain control of the Government. If, to enlarge their political power and representation in Congress, the extend sutfra e to all the colored men, see an element 0 loyalty would thereby Be infused into the ballot box that, added to the white loyalty existing there, we might safely count upon a portion of their representation being reliable, true Union men, and thus avoid a solid sectional vote against the interests of that part of the country which has saved it. In my judgment, there is no reasonable ground of fear, whether they do or do not extend suffrage to colored men, that the control of the national Government can be placed in disloyal hands. Will the adoption of this amendment work any wrong or injustice to the white people of the South? While slavery existed they were allowed representation upon 3/5th s of their slaves. It is somewhat difficult to see an principle upon which this basis was adopted. If they stood upon the same footing as the non-votin white population, then they should have ha representation for the whole number; while if they were regarded as property merely they should not have been counted at all, as no property qualification was established or allowed in other respects. If any representation at all was allowed, it was proper that its exercise should be given to the masters, as the condition of' absolute dependence and submission in which the slaves stood rendered all free and intelligent choice impossible on their part, and if the slaves had any interest to be re tected it was the master’s and not theirs. The master might possibly be regarded as the head of a family, oFwhich the slaves formed apart, and so their proper representative; but I agree that the analogy is exceedingly faint. But the compromise by which this artial representation was allowed for slaves llad probably very little foundation in any just principle of representation, but was one of the arbitrary compromises by which the conflicting interests of the 2 sections were adjusted. The North consented to so much representation, in con' sideration that direct taxes should be laid in the same manner. Like all the compromises that have been made, the South had the best of it, as they had a large and constant reprosentation from it, while the direct taxes have 1 be sure been too small and unfrequent to fuinish any corresponding advantage to the North. But slavery is over and ended. The slaves have been made free. The masters can no longer claim to represent them, either on the ground that they are members or dependents of their families or that they own them as their property. The former ruling class in the South say, “These people, now having become free persons, we are entitled to have our representation raised by the enumeration of the whole for that purpose.” “Very well, ” say we, “ let the same rule of suffrage extend to them as is applied to the white people, and be represented for them all.” “By no means, ” it is answered; “they are too ignorant to know how to protect their own interests in votinv, and therefore we will vote for them; and still morer we cannot permit themto vote because it would tend to elevate them socially to something like the elevated plane upon which we stand, which we will not submit to." Is there any just ground upon which the southern whites can claim thatt iey should represent the negro population, especially those lately held in slavery? Do they stand in the same relation to them that the fathers, hus bands, and brothers of a northern community do to their non-voting women and children, whose interests are as dear to them as their own? How opposite in theor and in fact is the relation between them. 'lhey do not regard them as having a common interest to be supported, but as a hostile element in society to be spurned and crushed. It seems to me perfectly manifest that upon no just principle should representation be allowed to the whites on account of the negroes. Suppose we test this by the actual choice of the negroes themselves. If the negroes were allowed to choose representatives themselves, and to choose between their former masters or others like them and men like the senior Senators from Massachusetts and Ohio, which would be elected? I would be willing to we er well on the success of my friends here. think it perfectly just for us to say, “ If you will not let these people vote you shall not alone represent them, at we will do it jointly. We believe we have their true interests at heart quite as much as you; we believe we understand their wants quite as well, and we are satisfied they will be more content under our joint representation than under yours alone.” Does this amendment do justice to the colored people of the South? Mr. President, I am sorry to feel compelled to say that I do not think it does. I cannot feel satisfied with a scheme of reconstruction of these rebel States which gives no direct and immediate benefit to the only class of loyal people livin in them. When I remember how loyal and faitful these people ever proved, how they fed, clothed, concealed, and guided our prisoners who had escaped from rebel risons and starvation; how faithfully and tru y they brought us information and guided our troops; and more than all, how gallantly they fought by the side of our men, and how nobl they yielded their lives to save the nation, Ifcel that something more direct should be granted to and done for them. I should be much better satisfied if the right of suffrage had been given at once to the more intelligent of them and such as had served in our Army. But it is believed by wiser ones than myself that this amendment will very soon produce some grant of suffrage to them, and that the craving for political power will ere long give them universal suffrage. such I know to be the opinion of many intelligent Union men of the South with whom [have conversed. I trust the result may be as they predict, and that the day may come when in all the nation, as in my own free State, the law shall make and know no diflerence between men on account ofraee or color. Believing that this amendment probably goes as far in favor of sum: 9 to t o negro ! 5 practicable to aocomplls now mulhopln it may in the end accomplish all I destro in this respect, I shall vote for its adeption, although I should be'glad to go further. The substitute for the 3rd section, which we have ado ted, disables the leaders of the rebellion, hot i civil and military, from holding office unless restored by not of Congress. Can the South, can the men who are thus disabled, complain of this? Were ever men who had been guilty ofarmed rebellion against their lawful Government treated with such lenity? The history of the world shows no parallel of mercy like this. Never before was there a rebellion of halfthe magnitude of this, I might say of a /100th part the magnitude of this, that the streets did not run with the blood of the offend ers. A war without cause, or pretended cause, except that the opposite party had carried the election in acon'Qtitutional way, which resulted in killing and disabling probably halfa million men on our side, involving us in a debt of $3,000,000,000 to burden us and our children after us, and we exact as a penalty for it, and as a measure of safety for ourselves, that the leaders, instead of being hung, shall not hold office unless Congress shall for their good be havior or other cause remove the restriction. What if they were the subjects of a political delusion? What if they had been taught that a State had the constitutional power to secede? Have not all rebellions had as good a foundation, and those who were hanged for it been as sincere in their belief in the justice of their cause as any man in this rebellion was? This has never been regarded as any answer to the legal liability. Ifga man or set of men make war against their Government, they do it at the peril of making the war successful or of taking the 10 al consequences, If when the rebellion was over we had said to every man engaged in it, “ We will allow you to retain your life and your property, but you shall never participate in the Government of the country you have attempted to destroy, by voting or holding office, ” it would have been all they could have expected or had any right to expect. This is the basis upon which any land, Missouri, and other States have settled it for themselves. But we leave the great mass utterly untouched, and the leaders with their lives, their property, the full enjoyment of all their civil rights and privileges, With the right of voting for all officers, bot State and national, with the single restriction they shall not hold office. The is proportion between the cause and the consequence is so great as to almost make it ridiculous. I know it is said that this is a measure so harsh and severe that it will not be accepted by the South. But I do not believe so; on the contrary, I believe it will be acceptable to the masses, that they will consider it a very easy awnement, and that if there is anything like punishment in it, it falls where it is deserved. I there be any included in this class (as it is agreed there may be) who were really forced into the rebellion against their will, it will be very easy to procure absolution by making the fact appear to Congress. The remaining propositions of amendment, declaring the sacred and inviolabie character of our national obligations, and the illegality and invalidity of the rebel debt, and of any compensation for the slaves who have been freed, admit of no doubt as sound proositions in themselves. The only question that can be made upon them is the propriety or necessity of incorporating them into the fundamental law. For myself, I think that although these may in a certain sense be said to be matters of a tem orary character, still they involve interests o such immense magnitude thatit is proper the should be settled in the most solemn and enduring mode, and that their incorporation into the Constitution will save disputes and wrangling hereafter. Mr. President, it has been said that all these proposed amendments, as a whole, as a genera plan for the restoration of these States, will not be acce table to them, and that they will not ado t' them, or at least that they will not do it will ingly; and if they adopt them at all it will only be under a kind of coercion and because they cannot otherwise obtain what they seek; and thatwc have no right to secure even proper amendments in that way. It seems to me that this plan, as a whole, is characterized by so much moderation and for bearance that it cannot fail to commend itself to the people of these States so that they will readily an freely give it their sanction. But, sir, if it be true that they are not satisfied with it, and will on] adopt it to secure their return to share in the national power, I am so well satisfied that this lan contains nothing but what we have the right to insist on, and which justice to the nation requires, that I should feel no hesitation in saying kindly, but firmly, “You must acquiesce in these amendments before we will permit you to take part in the administration of the General Government.” There is nothing ncwin this, either. Did these States accept the amendment abolishing slavery willingly a much more important matter to them than anything contained in these prepositions? Did they declare their ordinances of secession null and void or declare the rebel debt invalid willingly? We know they did not, but only because the President required it of them. Has anyone ever blamed the President or thought he was unjust to the South in these requirements? If the people of the nation, through their representatives, believe that something more shouldjustl be required, they have the equal right and should exercise the right to demand it. ve should not exercise our power to make any unjust demand, but what is just and right to exact we should be wanting in our duty if we fail to have done. Mr. President, it is a matter of great satisfaction to me that at last, after so much and so anxious deliberation, it 11 cars so probable that Congress will be aii e to present a plan upon which the requisite majorities of 0th Houses will be able to agree, and especially when as a whole this plan commends itself so well to my own judgment of what is right. this known that some differences ofopinion have existed between Congress and the xecutive on this subject. Great differences have existed among our selves; many opinions have had to yield to enable us to agree upon a plan. If we are so fortunate, as I trust we shall be, to pass these propositions by the requisite majorities, although they may not in all respects correspond with the views of the President, I believe he will feel it to be his patriotic duty to acquiesce in the plan proposed, and give his powerful influence and support to procure their adoption. We are all aiming at the same grand result, the difference is rather in the choice of modes and means to attain it. We are all, I trust, actuated by the same high motives of patriotism, and all desire to see all these States again acting harmoniously together. In a matter of such grave importance, with no precedents for our action, with no guide in the Constitution but that furnished by its general spirit and par osc, it is not singular that great diversity of i eas should exist. In such case opinions must icld to some extent, or else nothing could lie a reed or settled, and all would be anarchy. will not allow myself to believe that these measures will not, under the circumstances, receive the sincere support of the President, although he may not clieve them perfect. Mr. President, there are men who believe we are now on the verge of rain, and that we shall never again become a united and bar monious people. But, sir, I believe they are either cowards or croakers, who always see the dark side of the picture. For myself, I see no such cause of alarm. To me every thing looks hopeful for the future. We have just gone through the greatest war the world has ever seen. Au iin aralleled social revolution has taken place 1n the South 3 or 4 million peop 0 turned from slaves into a free people. That in so short atiii'ieat‘ter these eat events so much of order and quietness an obedience to law should exist is astonishin. The world never witnessed its parallel. “c did not expect it ourselves before the close of the war, at now we are im atient and troubled because it is not better. ime alone will smooth and allay the stormy waves of excitement and passion caused by such momentous events. To me, sir, a great and glorious future is Openin for our country. Slavery, the great blight an curse that has hung upon us, is ended forever. The South, so long retarded by it, will be opened and expanded by the influence of free labor and free institutions. A new agriculture will enrich and beautif her fields. Commerce and manufactures will build up busy towns and carry thrift and wealth along her cat rivers. All causes of discord between Nort and South being over, we shall become a homogeneous nation of free men, dwelling together in peace and unity. United and wholly free, our power would awe the world. I he c to live to see the day when all will agree t iat this great war which has destroyed slavery, severe and bur densome as it was to this generation, was yet one of those “blessings in disguise" sent by the Great Ruler of all which proved the very salvation of the nation.