Mr. SAULSBURY. I do not wish to vi0 late the rules of the Senate. I have been one of those unfortunate members of the body who generally have not understood the rules very well, an pay very little attention tomorepaper rules so long as I govern myself according to those high prinnciples of honor which should characterize intercourse among gentlemen. Then, sir, I say it was distinctly avowed by leading Republicans, but I do not say where that one of the objects of keeping out southern representatives from legislation in these Halls was to pass measures of this character in their absence which could not be passed if they were present, and thus to deprive that section of the country of its equal representation according to the Constitution as it now exists; and itwas said that if this was not done they, uniting with those who have been politely, and I was about to so gentleiuanly, ternied “copperheads, ” wonl control the polities of the country in the future. Mr. President, we all know that there was a time when the States of this Union were equal. There was a time when the Federal Constitution did not exist, and when the States of this Union being all equal, all separate, all independent, all, according to the 2nd of the Articles of Confederation, having reserved to themselves absolute sovereignty, met together in council to form a more perfect Union; and one of the most difficult subjects requiring their deliberation, and which came as near almost as any other preventing the formation of that Constitution and the permanent establishment of that Union, was this very question oftaxation and representation. As has been often said in this Cfiamber and elsewhere, one of the great compromises of the Constitution was this very compromise of taxation accordin to representation. The proposition now, however, is to denythat equali representation and to make taxation unequal. As the clause of the constitution now stands it reads thus: "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several Stateswhich may be included within this Union accordingto their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not.taxed, 3/5ths of all other persons.” The proposition now before the Senate is: Representation shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union accordingto the respectivenumbers, counting the whole numberof personsin eachState, excluding Indians not taxed: Provided, That whenever the elective franchiseshall be denied or abridgedin any Stateon account of raceor color all crscustherein of such race or colorshall be exciud from the basis of representation. Now, Mr. President, I wish to make this suggestion and ask this question: whether, if this proposition, now beiore the Senate, had been made to the delegates of the several States who formed the Constitution, you would ever had the Federal Union? The proposition is to increase the taxation of the southern people and to decrease their representation. suppose such a proposition as that had been made in the Convention which framed the Constitution, I ask you, sir, do you believe ou would ever have had this Union? Certain y not. You propose that is the eTTect of it by your legislation here, in the absence of the representatives of thatsection of the country which is mostly to be affected by it, to do an act of injustice which had it been proposed by your fathers in the Convention which ramed the Constitution would not have been submitted to, which would have forever re vented the formation of the Federal Union. Thenl ask you, wh do you do it now? Simply because you have the power, as you suppose, to inflict an unfair and unjust measure upon yes, I will use the word a conquered and submissive people; you propose to change the fundamental law at a time when 1/3rd, of the country, and that the 3rd of the country that is to be affected injuriously by it, have no rep Representative on this floor to speak in behalf of their interests. attempt such an injustice toward the States of NewYork, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, and every hill top and val ey will glitter with the weapons of resistance in the hands of a people acting responsivel to the call of liberty as magically as did the Scottish heights at the command of Roderick Dhu. In discussing questions of this kind, it is proper that we should go back and consider what it was our fathers meant to do in the establishment of this Government, and what kind of a Government it was which they did establish. As I said before, the time was when these States lived under what were called the Articles of Confederation. These Articles of Confederation having been found by experience not sufficient for all the general purposes Of the States, they sent delegates to a, onveution to frame the Constitution under which we now live. To show you how guarded they were in refeJcnce to the character and form of the government which should be established, how jeal ous they were of their rights as States, and how jealous they were of the spirit of liberty, I ask our attention for one moment to a few of the instructions which they gave to their representatives: “ powersto those deputiesworethe following: By NewHampshire. to discussand decide upon the most effectualmeansto remedy the defectsof the Federal Union. “Massachusetts.in conformity with the resolutio of Congress recommendinga convention for the sole purpose of revisin the Articles of Confederation.to render the Federal Constitution adequate to the preser va“tion of the Union. Connecticut, " for the soloand express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation, to render the federalConstitution adequate to the exigencies of governmentand the preservationof the Union. whYork, in the same words. “NewJersey. for the purpose of taking into considerationthestate of the union, as to tradcand other important subjects, and of devising such otherpro vision; as sha I appearto be necessary to render the Constitutionof the Federal Government adequate to the exigencies thereof., “ Pennsylvania, to devise such alterations rindfiir "Hr provisionsasmay bencecssaryto render the fril rrrll Constitution fully adequateto the exigencies of the Uniun. Delaware in thesame words, with a proviso that each State nsdh.ailnl ht have saonnieewvootredisn, w Congress. proviso. “ Virginia, in the saine words.This State passed the first law for appointing delegates to the convention. NCarolina, for the purpose of revising the Forlorn! Constitution. SCarolina, to devisesuch nltrrnlirrmas may be thought necessary to render the finder"! Constitution entirely adequateto the actual situation and future Georgdi government of the confederat r tu. To devise such alterations as may render the Federq Constitution adequate to the azigencies of the Unwra" I read these instructions to the delegates to the General Convention for the purpose of show in that the object of the States in sending their delegates to a General Convention in 1787was not for the purpose of establishing a different kind of Government, but only to perfect the existing Federal Government under the Articles of Confederation, and to make it adequate for the general purposes common to all. and, in fact, this is allt e Convention did, if Mr. Madison is to be considered authority. In the 40th number of the Federalist he remarks: "We have seenin the new Govemmont as in the old, the general powers are limited, and that the States in all uncnumerated casesare left in the enjoyment of their sovereignand independeut jurisdiction. The truth is that the great principles of the Constitutionproposedby the Convention may be considered lessasabsolutelynewthan as the expansion of principles which are found in the Articles of confederation.” We know very well that when the delegates met together there was great diversity of opinion among them as to the true nature and character of the Government which should be formed. We had the plan of Mr. Randolph, of Virginia; we had the lan of Mr. Pinckncy, of SCarolina; we had the plan of Mr. Hamilton; we had the plan of Mr. Patterson; and we had the more re iublican and Federal form as presented by Mr. ickinson, of my own State. Curing the progress of the debates, and for weeks it was attempted in that Convention t“o introduce the term “ National Legislature, " National Judiciar,” “National Executive.” Some wished to clot ethe Executive with power during flood behavior; Mr. Hamilton, the senate ot this U.S. during good behavior. Mr. Randolph, of Virginia, oifered sundry resolutions even after the word national had been reected by all theStates, proposing, among other tings, “That a nationalLegislature shall have the right to legislate in all casesin which the harmonyof the U.S. may be interruptedby the exerciseof individual legislation, and tonegatiyeall lawspassed by the several States contraveuing, in the o mum of the nulional Legislature.the articles of the nion or any treaty under the Union." So the controversy among these patriotic fathers went on until some of the members, among others Mr. Lansing, of NewYork, and Mr. Luther Martin. of Maryland, retired from the Convention, giving up all hope ofever forming such a system of Government as the States would agree to live under. It was then that the representatives from NewHampshire came in. After further deliberation, the Convention came to the conclusion not to form a“ nation al ” Governmentwith a “national” Executive, 0. “national ” Legislature, and a “national” Judiciary, but to continue a Federal Government, on the principles of the Articles of confederation, and hence, instead of incorporating in the Constitution of the U.S., as in dicating the depositary of legislative power, the word “Parliament” or “ national Legislature, ” they adopted the term “Congress of the U.S., " which was a fit, apt, and appropriate term to show the nature of the power: intended to be deposited, or to be reserved or created in that Constitution byt e representatives of sovereign and independent States, and to show the character of that Government, its relations to the States, and the relation of the States to each other. The relation of the Government formed by the States was that of the creature to the crea tor, of the common agent to associated principals; and the relation of the States to each other was that of equality. As equal, independent political sovereignties, they agreed in the Constitution which they formed that no State, without its consent, should be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. This provision manifestly establishes not only the equality of the States, but the indestructihility of one State by the others, and establishes the further fact, which is of, the greatest importance at the present time, that this Senate has not, under any pretense whatever, any power on earth, without the consent of a State, to deny such State representation and equal representation, in the Senate and here, sir, I take occasion to express my unqualified dis sent from the opinion recently expressed on this floor by the Senfrom Pennsylvania, [Mr. Btexumw] that this revision of the Constitution, in relation to Slimators, can be changed by amendment, if he meant to be understood as saying that such change can be made without the consent of the State to be affected thereby. This is an uiialterable compact between the States. The union of England and Scotland, effectedby compact, captains stipulations beyond the power of the united Government to alter, especially that inrelation to the religion of the latter kingdom. The stipulation in our Constitution referred to is equally beyond the power of the States to alter. The Convention which framed the Constitution considered no questions more thoroughly, nor were any more difficult of adjustment than those of re presentation and taxation. As a compro mise, and the only one upon which they could agree, they declared that“Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several Stateswhich may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall bedeterminedbyaddingto the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, 3/5ths of all other persons. Then, I say, that had the proposition which is now before us been presented to the fathers, it would not have been entertained fora moment. I might go on and cite extracts from the federalist showing the views of Mr. Madison, Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Jay, the authors of that cele brated work, in reference to the Constitution as finally presented for the consideration of the States, to show that it was qnl claimed that but a very few powers were delegated to the Federal Government, and that all other powers except those expressly delegated were reserved to the States or the people; and that according to Mr. Hamilton those powers thus reserved were of the same character and as sovereign in their nature as were the powers delegated to the Federal Government. I shall contentm self With reading a very few brief extracts. n the 31st number of the Federalist Mr. Hamilton observes: "The State governmentsby their original constitutions are investedwith completesovereignty.” In the 30 2nd number he remarks: “An entire consolidation of the States into one completenational sovereigntywouldimply an entire subordination of the parts and whatever powers might remain in themwould bealtogetherdependent on the general will. But as the plan of the onvention aimedonly at a partial union or consolidation. the State governments would clearly retain all the rightsofsovereignty which they beforehad. and which were not by that not aclunoch/ delegatedto the U.S. This exclusive delegation or rather this alienation. of State sovereignty would only exist in 3 cases where the constitution in expressterms granted an exclnsive authority to the Union: whore it granted in one instance an authority to the Union and in another prohibited the States from exercising the like authority; and whereit grantedanauthority to the union tow ichasimilar authorityin the States would be absolutely and totally contradictory and "pumianl." In further explanation of the true character of our Federal system of government, in a de parture from the spirit and enius of which the prolposuion under consideration has its origin", refer to the views of Mr. Madison, as expressed in the “ Federalist. He says: The powersdcle atedby the proposed constitution to the Federal governmentare fewand defined. Those which are to remain in the Stategovernments are numerous and indefinite. The former will beexneercgiosetidaptiroinnc.aipnadlly foreign external objects as war, ease. commerce.with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all theobjectswhich in theordinary course of affairsconcernt a lives, liberties and properties of the people and the internal order.improvement and prosperityof the State." This kind of a government having been framed, republican in character, Federal and not national in form and substance; and this new Government having started out to take a new position among the nations of the earth, and swing prospered and grown beyond the most sanguine expectations of its friends, I come now to trace the causes which led to the unfortunate situation in which we find our selves, and which situation is made the retext of the unjust and unconstitutional legislation proposed. Mr. President, numbering originally 3 million peopl e and 13 States, regarding With eat strietness and care the fundamental principles of constitutional liberty as they were found in that written Constitution, in a few short years we became the wonder of the world. No people were so happy; for the records of human society do not show such a rapid growth, expansion, and development of any people in so short a time and to what was it owing? To the free principles of government which our fathers secured or themselves and for their posterity, and a cheerful acquiescence by the at mass of the American people while those. fathers lived in those constitutional principles of liberty aplicable to the citizen, and those constitutiona rights secured to the States as separate and distinct political communities. If todny I shall appear to travel for a few moments out of what may seem to be the record of this case to notice the causes which have been instrumental in bringing this once ha py country into its present lamentable condition, I shall not in fact be traveling out of the record. Sir, I am tired of sitting in this Chamber and hearing, when a political difference grows up between the Executive of the U.S and a portion of his party, thosewith whom I have acted from early life in political matters called “copperheads, ” “disunionists, ” and “trait ors.” Sir, parrots can repeat words, the meaning of which they have not understanding enough to comprehend. When such words are applied in debate it is high time for those whose political opinions and associations are thus unwarrantnb and unjustifiably assailed to turn around and ask who is the traitor and who is the disunionist. I do not propose to apply the term to the masses of any political part. I believe on the contrary, that there are 100s and 1,000s of good and patriotic people in all political arties. Could the great mass of that politics. part who re fused eve offer of compromise on rejected every possible mode of adjusting sectional differences have foreseen in 1860 what they have since witnessed, I do not believe that there are very many of that party, even, who would have hazarded and imperiled all that was dear to the American heart, and brought their country to the verge of disruption; ay. sir, to positive, actual disruption. Some of us did think, even then air that we foresaw the consequences which have resulted from that course. e thought that if the storm could be alla ed, if the mad passions of the hour could be calmed, it was a patriotic duty which we owed to ourselves, to our country, and to the world to advise eace, reconciliation, and harmony. But, sir, that was not the spirit that then governed the councils of the country. The interests of party were held to be superior to those of the country. There were, however, traitors then rating of patriotism and accusing others of disoyalty as there are disunionists and de structives now who boast of their devotion to the Union and attempt to impeach the patriotic fidelity of others by the use of vulgar epithets. I do not intend, fir one, without uttering my protest, to allow gentlemen who for ears and years were engaged in a course O political action in itself contrary to the teachings of the fathers and to the just rights of the people, when war rages in the lan or after the war has ceased, to assume for themselves all the patriotism and denounce all those who, oppose their measures as being less patriotic than themselves. Sir, one of the embarrassing questions with which the fathers had to deal in the formation of the Constitution was the subject of domestic slavery. I do not know that there was much sentimental opposition to slavery in those days. I do not know that it was then talked of generally as being so contrary to the Word of od and the rights of man as it is now. It was not so aparent then that it might become necessary or one section of the country to increase its own representation and to decrease the representation of another section by excludin this class from representation, or by a propered bribe of an erior friendship make them political allies, or it could not then have been fore seen that all the States, except the few southern States where slavery recently existed would be so soon rid of that institution. At the time of the DeclarIndep every 001 ony was a slaveholding colony, and even at the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the U.S. every State except one was a slaveholding State, and their delegates met as the representatives of political communities recognizing the relation of master and slave. Hence, being there as the representatives of States making this recognition, they did not find it so necessary to get rid of representation according to poulation, or to exclude from representation all classes and colors who were not allowed to vote. The Constitution had not long been in existence, however, before there did arise in this country a few pestilent fellows who commenced presenting their petitions to Congress for the abolition of slavery in the States. In 1819and 1820, by the gradual abolition of the institution of slavery in the northern States some were so unkind as to say that their slaves were sold down South; I do not know anything about that sectional power had become so nearly and equally balanced that when Missouri applied (for admission into the Union what did we hear? We heard the text from the mouth of Rufus Kin, of NewYork, which has been attributed, believe, to Mr. Seward. Mr. Kin in that controversy declared that no laws an no constitutions could bind the conscience of the people, and that he would not recognize any such constitutional obligations as those imposed by the Constitution in reference to the rendition of fugitive slaves. That difficulty, by the wisdom of the distinguished statesman from Kcntuck and those who acted with him, was happiy adjusted. But, sir, abolitionism was not content. It was comparatively guiet for a few years; but between 1833 an 1838 it convulsed the whole land by the presentation of petitions to conress to do an unconstitutional act; and when. exas, by the constitutional act of Congress and the Executive of the U.S., was admitted into the Union, abolitionism howled and threatened to do just what the southern people have vainly attempted to do. While I am on this matter, thong I do not propose to attack any State or the people of any State, but as it is relevant to the question, I propose to read something that was said in another section of the country. I do not wish to make a sectional speech, but I do it for the purpose of showing that if the action of the scatern people has been wrong, there are other people in this country who have been criminal also, and therefore when you meet in legislative halls, it should not be to legislate in the spirit of vengeance, but you should take into consideration the circumstances in which those people were placed, and the doctrines which they were taught to believe and the doctrines which you yourselves taught them to believe. Now sir, when that subject of the annexation O Texas was being agitated, what do we find? We find Massachusetts resolving, as follows: "Rcmloed, That the Bower tounite an independent foreignStatewith the U.S. is not among the powers delegated to the General Government by the constitution of the U.S. "Renewed, That the Commonwealth of Massachusetts faithful to the compactbetween the peoplelof the U.S. according to the plain meaning and intent in which it was understood and acceded to by them is since rcly anxiousfor its pleservation. but that it isdotermined.as it doubtsnot the other States are not to submittonn delogated powersin anybodyof menon earth. That the project of the annexationof Texas.unlessarrestedon the threshold may tend to drive these States into adissolution of the Union and will furnish now calumnics against republican Governments by exposing the gross contradiction of a peopleprofessingto befree and vet seekingto extend and perpetuatethe subjectionof their slaves." I do not quote this in any unkind spirit to ward the people of Massachusetts or any other State, for, sir, I was proud when Massachusetts, SCarolina, and all the States were not only in the Union, but represented upon this floor, and if their statesmen uttered sentiments and advanced opinions which did not meet the approval of my judgment, I was not one of those to question their independent right to do so. But I say here that by her legislative resolve, Massachusetts, in 1844, used, in effect, the ver same language which the Legislature of SCarolina and the peeple of the other southern States have used since. But, air, that is not all. She passed some more resolves in 1845, the 1st of which I will read: “Resolved.That Massachusetts has never dale ated the powerto admit into the Union States or arri torieswithout or beyond the original territory of the Statesand Territories belongin to the Union at the adoptionof the Constitution of the U.S.; and that in whatever manner the consent of Massachusetts may have beengiven or inferredto the admission of the States already by general consent forming part of the Union. from such territory the admissionof such States. in the judgmentot: assachusetts.forms no precedentfor the admissionof Texas. Und can never be interpretedto restonpowers grantedin the Constitution." The cause that led the South finally to take the fatah step of attempting to secede was the agitation of this slavery question bthat portion of the people who were not at al interested in it, and the desire ofa. few men in the South to break up the Union for I do not doubt there were such men in the South just as there were in Massachusetts and other sections of the country. I have no doubt there were a few men in both sections who wished to break up the Union for the purpose of breaking it up; but the great mass O either section did not want the Union destroyed. While [am on this subject let me refresh the minds of gentlemen. on the other side who choose to have me their attention, and remind them that if the South attempted to secede, you taught them the doctrine. You had advocated it yourselves, and in its advo cacy you were just as criminal as they, and in some respects, not only in its advocacy, but by our practical actions, you were just as crim inal as they. YOu say that the southern States had no right to secede. Admit it I think so, too. You say that they had no right to oppose a constitutional act of Congress. So say I. But, sir, you threatened secession yourselves, and you proclaimed whenl say “you” I mean your people in the northern States that secession was a constitutional right. The 1st writer upon the Constitution of the U.S., whose work was generally recognized, and which was, until a very late crio, if it is not now, the text book at your lilitary Academy at WestPoint, asI am informed, distinctly and plainly announced the right of a.State to secede. You placed that book in the hands of the students in your Military Academy, and some of the ablest men in the land proclaimed that the doctrine was true. It was a doctrine the rightfulness of which had never been de cided by any authority having the power to execute its decrees. Before citing Mr. Rawle on this point I will state that the people of the northern States had in fact done the same thing that the people of the southern States have done, except that they did not meet in convention and attemptto repeal the act by which they ratified the onstitution of the U.S. But, sir, can you not oppose the law and the Constitution without repealing your ratification of the constitution? If the people of the southern States used force in asserting their right to oppose Federal authority, and you have done the same, what is the difference? During the existence of the fugitive slave law, a law enacted by the lawmaking power of the land, recognized by the judicia tribunals of the States and of the U.S. to be constitutional and binding, did you not oppose it? What, allow such an act as that to be executed within the limits of the northern States! It was sometimes executed and it was sometimes opposed, and opposed by force, and blood sometimes ran down Our streets in the attempt to execute that law. n this aspect of the case the difference between portions of the northern people and a portion of thesouihern people was not a difference in principle; it was on y adifference to the extent of the exercise of the power of resistance; the principle was the same in both cases, and it was as fully reasonable in Massachusetts, Ohio, or Wisconsin to oppose by force the execution of that law as it was in SCarolina to tire on Fort Sumter. We know there were men in all sections of the country who honestly believed in the right of a State to secede. You did not, sir; nor do I; but. I will show you who did. Mr. Rawle, in his day the great lawyer of Pennsylvania, and who was oliered by Mr. Jefferson more than once the office of AttyGen of the U.S and declined it, in his work upon the Constitution, says this: “ The Union is an association of the people of republics; its preservation is calculated to cpendon he preservation of those republics. The pen is of each pledge themselves to preserve that form of government in all. Thus one becomes responsible to the rest. that no other form of government shall preVail in it; and all are bound to preserve i in every one. But the more compact, without the power to enforce it, would be of little value. Now, this iower can be nowhere so properly lodged us in the nion. tself. Hencethe term guarantee indicates that the U.S.are authorized to oppose, and if possible Drovent overg State in the nion from relin uuhrhin: the RFG and as auxiliary means they are expressly authorized and required to employ their form on the application of the constituted authorities of each State to repress domestic violence. If a faction should attempt to subvert the government of a State for the purpose of destroying its republican form, the paternal pqwerof the Union could thus be called forth to subdue it. Yet it is not to be understood that its interpositionwould bQJustiliablo ifthe eo 10of a State should deter mine to retire from to nion, whethertheyadopted gine theror retained the same form of government or if they should, iniz, expunge With the express intention of seced the representative system from their code, and thereby incapacitate themselves from concurring. accordingto the mode now prescribed in the choiceof certain public otficcrsof the U.S. ta:inTlyhe the principle of representation, althoughcer wisest and best is not essential to the being of a republic; but to continue a mcmber of the Union it must be preserved, and therefore the guarantee must be so construed. It depends on the Stateitself to retain or abolish the principle of representation, bocauscitdepeuds on itself whether it will continue a memberof the Union. To denythis right wouldbe inconsistentWith the principle on whichall our political systemsare founded, which is, that the people have in all casesa right to determine how they will begoverned.” I refer to this, not because I hold to the doctrine of secession, or ever did, or ever uttered such a sentiment, but to show that in his day the ablest writer upon constitutional law in this country, and whose work on placed in your Military Academy, held distinctly and unequivocally to the right of a State to secede. I cite it not to say that it is true, but to make an appeal to this Senate, to you, sir, and to the country, that if men have been taught by the ablest writers upon constitutional law to believe it, if it was a common belief among the people in one section, and if it was adopted and avowed by whole States in the other section of the country, and the unhappily, having eriingly essayed the ways O secession, now find themselves unsuccessful and helpless, but honest in their conviction of right, it is no cause for vengeance at your hands; and because they have acted upon their honest belief of right, you have not a right to come into the Congress of the U.S and deny them equal representation according to the Constitution, and to impose upon them unjust and unequal taxation. appy, sir, would they be to be here, through their representatives, in peace, acting in harmony with you. In the spirit of vengeance and for the purpose of re tainin political power in your hands against the will of the people, you unconstitutionally bar these doors against those representatives and impose upon them unjust burdens, and deprive them of clear constitutional rights. Sir, your leadin men, as well as those of their section, taug t them that this doctrine was atrue doctrine. You taught it to them in the council chambers of the nation. We hear a great deal of censure with reference to the southern gentlemen who avowed this doctrine upon this floor and the floor of the other House; but sir, in some portions of the other section of the country they have idolized men who have preached the same doctrine, as I will proceed to show. When the question of the admission of Louisiana into the Union was before the HoRep in 1811, Mr. Josiah Quincy, an a lo Representative from Massachusetts, in opposing it, said: “ To me, it appears that it would justify a revolution in this country and that in no great length of time mayproduceit." "Under the sanctionof this rule of conduct, I compelled am todeclare it if asmydeliberateopinion that. this bill passes.the bondsof this Union are virtu ally dissolved: that the Stateswhich compose it are freefrom their moral obligations and that. as it will be the right of all, so it will be the duty of some.to preparedefinitelyfor a scpuration amicablyif they can. violently if they must." What did the southern gentlemen when they were in this Hall say more than that? and yet Mr. Quincy was never visited by his section of the country with any dire punishment or any mark of disapprobation for uttering this doctrine. Having shown that the course pursued by the citizens of the southern States was a course having the approval of their leading men, and that the same doctrine had the approval of leading men in other sections of the country, I have accomplished my purpose, it i being simply to ask you, if that be true, whether they are in such a condition as to merit a further visitation of punishment even if you had the power to inflict it after what they have already suffered “I While referring to the work of Mr. Rawle, I wish to notice for a moment one ound upon which authority is claimed for this Ifirindof legislation. It is said that Congress by the constitution is bound to guaranty to every State a RFG. Mr. Rawle says that when a State resolves to go out of the Union, that clause does not apl. Let us see whether it does or not. It is claimed that you have authority to pass this JtResolution because the southern States withhold the right of voting from the negro population, and that congress have a right to withhold representation in congress from a State, or the adhering States, upon the basis provided for in the Constitution until the rightof suffrage shall by authority of such State be extended to all theiuhabitants of such State without distinction of race or color, and thatthis right in Congress is founded in or based upon its authority and duty under the constitution of guarantyingto each State a RFG; no government bein, according to the opinion of the advocates of this theor, republican in form under which universa suffrage is denied. Indeed, so wild and extravagant as opinion become in radical circles in reference to this question, thatitis gravely contended by some that Congress can by simple legislative enactment declare that all persons without any sort of distinction shall be entitled to the full and free enjoyment of the elective franchise within a State. The words of the Constitution are, “ The U.S shall aranty to every State in the Union a RFG.” What is the true meaning of this provision of the Constitution? By it a legal relation is created, and by it a contract is formed. There are parties to that relation or contract; those parties are the U.S. as guarantor ang the State as guarantee. This relation necessarily creates an obligation in reference to the U.S., and imposes a duty upon them. It also gives the right to a State to demand, whenever the necessity shall exist, the discharge of that obligation and the performance of that duty. But who is to determine when this duty is to be performed? Is the guarantor to make haste to redeem his pledge when the arautee is perfectly satisfied? Is he to ay before demand, before notice, and when his kind offices are respectfully declined? If a portion of the people of a State in the Union shall attempt, or if any extraneouspower shall attempt, to subvert the RFG in such State, the U.S shall upon application of the legal authorities of such State, see to it that its RFG shall be maintained. But suppose the entire people of a; State, speaking through their State organization, their regularly constituted authorities, say, “ We do not want a RFG.” Suppose our State (Connecticut) NewYork, or any other State says so, what are the U.S. to do? You answer send an army there and make them have it. eW) are bound to force republicanisni upon a people whether they desire or disdain it. If they do not want it, we will whip it into them. Do you not see that this is destructive of the very essence of republicauism, which consists of freedom of choice? Sir, I always thoughtthat the existence of the guarantee asking the performance of duty and the discharge of obligation was as necessary in law as the existence of the guarantor. Sir, this clause of the Constitution was never meant to be aplied to a case like that we are now considering. It was meant to protect a State against the violence of faction, against the attempt of a portion of the people of a State combining together or acting in conjunction with others not of the State to subvert its RFG while such State was a member of the Union or desired to maintain its relations to the Federal Government. The framers of the Constitution were too deeply read in history not to know that all Governments were liable to internal commotions, to convulsions, and to disruptions. They doubtless supposed it possible that this Government might be subjected to dangers of this character. But, sir, they did not provide specifically in the Constitution against the attempt by 1/3rd of the States to withdraw themselves from the Federal Union or for the employment of Military force by the adherin States, acting through the ency of the federalGovernment, to comla herence by the other States to the Federal nion. In fact, it may safely be asserted that the framers of the Constitution, if we are to judge of their meaning b5] the just interpretation of their language in e expoaition of that instrument, anticipated and justified the use of force on the part of the State governments to repel usurpations on the part of the Federal Government should such attempts at usurpation be made. Says Mr. Hamilton, (Federal ist, No. 28:) " It maysafelybe receivedasan axiomin our political system. that the State governments will, in all possible contingencies, nffoi d completesecurity against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority. Projects of usurpation cannot be maskeduniler pretensessolikely to esen. c the pene tration of selectmenasoitho peopleat urge. fo"rTmhaetioLne;gislatures will have better meansof in theycandiscover the dangerat a distance and pouu nn all (heorgansof civil power and the confidenceof! iepeople.theycanat onceado i! a regular moiiroef"op in which theycan cominc all the of the community. Tlmucan readily commu iucatewith eachotherin the differentStates, and unite gheir coyrnnwnforccaf the protectionof their common Again, in the Federalist, No. 45, Mr. Hamil ton remarks: “ But ambitiousencroachments of the Federal government on the authority of the State governments would not excite the oppositionof a single State or of a few Statesonly. hey would besignalsof general alarm. Every governmentwould espousethe common cause. A correspondencewould be opened. Plans of renuiancewoul be concerted. One spirit would animate and conduct the whole. The same combinalion in short, would result from an a prehcnsion of the Federal aswas producedbythe read of a.foreign idle: and unless the projected innovations should e voluntaril renounced.the sameappeal to a trial offorce won d bemadein the one case as was madein the other. But what degreeof mad nesscould everdrive the federal Government to such an extremity3" Sir, we unhappily have witnessed and suffered from this exhibition of madness on the part of both the State and Federal Governments; and today we are dealing With questions of the most momentous character resulting from the indulgence of this spirit of madness. Relieved from the horrors of the battle field, we find our selves in the midst of a frightful civil revolution, that threatens the destruction of our very system of government. If the attempts of the revolutionists are not thwarted they will pull down the pillars of the Constitution and convert the once free Republic of the U.S. into the worst despotism on earth. But to return. A repubhcan government may enst and be a very different sort of government from that under which we have lived. There are many different kinds of republics, and one Senator has enlightened us by reading from all the old musty books he cond find in the Congressional Libr ry definitions of republican governments, on er the supposition, I suppose, that when the clause was placed in the Constitution that the U.S. should guaranty to ever? State a RFG, its ramers meant they should not guaranty to the States the kind of old republics that used to exist, and not even the ind of vernments that existed in the States when e Constitution was formed. Why, Mr. President, do you suppose the framers of that constitution, when they made it, did not suppose they themselves were living under a RFG? Did they inean by placing that guarantee in the Constitution, to guaranty to the States another kind of RFG, or one having more extensive privileges of a republican character, than the one existing at the time? In those days, in many of the States, there was a property tion for voting, and negroes were excfinuadleifidcain most, if not all of them, and notwithstanding the ver framers of the great. model republic themse ves lived in States recognizin this in equality of rights, we have some of teadvo cates of this JtResolution placing it upon the ground, when asked for the constitutional authority to enact it, that Congress has a right, under that clause of the Constitution, that the U.S shall guaranty to every State a RFG, to pass this resolution. The proposition is too ah arguhmisenbtr. INGs me to notice for a few minutes what is the true situation of these southern States, what are the rights of the people and whether they have any rights. I now that I differ on this subject with not only gentlemen on the other side of the Chamber, but I have no doubt Idiffer with many gentlemen with whom I act politically. In 1862, ina speech on confiscation in this body, when it was danger ous for men to utter their honest sentiments, even in the Senate Hall and in the Hall of the HoRep, I took the ouud that a State had no constitutional right to secede from the Federal Union, and that if it had any right of resistance at all it did not arise under the Constitution, but independently of it, and only when evils became so insufferablethat it would be better to resort to war to redress them than to further hear them. I maintained then the doctrine which I maintain now, and as I escaed a fort and hostile “then for the utterance, resume now, since there is no further use for ort LaFayette and Fort Delaware and Fort McHenry under the more enlightened present administration of the country than of the late one, I may repeat a doctrine which I then held, and which I believe to be founded in correct principles oflaw that if the State had no right to secede, but did secede, or halfa dozen oi a dozen States seceded and established a government having the power to enforce its commands and to punish disobe dience to its commands; the government of the U.S. being the Government de jars and that other government thus wrong fully established, if you please, being the government defacto; the Government of the U.S. not having the power to protect the people of those States from the consequences of isobedieuce to the command of the government de facto, and the government e faclo having power to punish them if they did not yield obedience, it was not treason in the people of those States, being thus circumstanced, to act in obedience to the commands of a government de facto; the Government de jun withholding its protection from them, it was not treason in ose people in the eye of the law, and that upon a air trial before any impartial tribuna in any State of this Union a man so circumstanced could not legally be convicted of treason. I say nothing in reference to the men who set a revolution in motion; who attempt to revolutionize and break up a Government; but, sir, there never was any people on earth yet, the whole of whom were traitors and ought to be punished as traitors. Men who deliberately plot the destruction of a Government, and make war upon a Government by uniting with mobs or great masses of men, and not acting under the commands of a Government that can compel their obedience, may be liable to the penalties of treason, and are liable to the penalties of treason but the greahmass of the people living under a Government, although wronglfully established, having the power to pnnis them if they refuse to obey its commands, and yielding obedience to authority and power which they cannot resist, are not surd for traitors; and so it has been decided before this civilWar was fought, or even before your constitution was framed. The doctrine is older than Blackstone, and is cited by him as law. His language, volume four, page 221, is: “A usurperwho has got possessionof the throne is a king within the incaninialof the statute.as thero is a temporui allegianceto iin for his administration of the government and temporary protection of agatihnest public; and, therefore trensons committed Henry VI were punished under Edward IV though all the line of Lancmster had previously been declared nsurpers by act of Purliament. When.therefore. it usurper is in possession, the subject is excused and justified in obeying and giving his maislunce; If otherwise under a usuration.uo manwould besafe the lawful prince h a right.to hang him for obe edeicrntacicntlyo the power in being.“ the usurperwould do for disobedience." I invite you to turn your attention at your leisure to Dallass lit ports, and you will find Iwill not as. the volume is full of such cases, but you wil? find many cases of this character: when Pennsylvania set up an independent government for herself and renounced allegiance to George HI; when she established a government of her own, and even before she united with the other colonies under an Articles of Confederation, persons who with iin 6 and 12 months after the establishment of that single State government refused to yield obedience to it and joined with the Tories of the Revolution, and adhered to the interests and fortunes of George I H, were indicted and convicted and executed for treason ainst the State of Pennsylvania; and upon whint principle? A doctrine clearly recognized in law and fully stated there, that Pennsylvania having established a government do facto, with powers to compel obedience, to punish disobedience, and to afford protection, and allegiance and protection being reciprocal, and eorgle HI not having it in his power to protect them a inst the comman s of the government of the State of Pennsylvania, their allegiance was due to the State of Pennsylvania after the establishment of such agovernment. Now, Mr. President, let me ask you this question: is it possible that there is any such law in this land, or is it possible there ever was any such law in any Christian land, that a man shall be liable to be punished if hc does a thing, and that he shall be liable to be punished if he does notdo it? Here are 2 governmeuts claim in the rightto control the action of the individ ua cititizen of a State. The one which is the rightful government, the Government of the U.S., if you please, and which, perhaps, he would gladly serve, has not the power to protect him, or having the power, fails to exercise it in his behalf, yet eclnres that if he yields obedience to the government which has the power to punish him, “ Ifhe refuses to obey iIt will hang him; and the other government, the government defacto, says, “I have got you in m possession; if on do not yield obedience I will hang on.” s there any such law that a man sha l be subjected to the penalty of death for yielding to circumstances which he is unable to resist and against which there is no power that can or will protect him? Vain will be the boast of our love of liberty and our regard for law should we in practice discard the humane and just principle anuounced by Blackstone and attempt to act upon a principle which the Government of England for 400 years has repudiated, and which is not recognized today by any civilized government on earth. Why do Ircfer to this principle? The igno rant, the thoughtless, a miserable vitiated press may say. “ because there is sympathy with traitors and treason.” I never notice the utter ances of fools. It is because we find ourselves placed today, in legislating for our country, in a situation that imperiously demands of the American legislator to think, and think properly, and to so appIy his actionthatinjustice and wron and cruelty and crime shall not be committed simply to appease maddened partisans and superlative patriots who perhaps amid the hours drainage.ofbattleskulked and hid and robbed the Treasury, and cried “copperhead” and “traitor” against others. I call your attention to this principle of law as applicable to the great mass of the southern people, and ask you, sir, if that be their legal status and real condition, whether your proposed legislation, even had you the constitutional authority to justify it in the absence from this Chamber of their re Representatives, is just and right, and whether those persons should be exc uded from a participation in the government or their representation in it diminished simply because they have yielded obedience to a power that they could not resist and a power against whose commands you could not protect them 1 Why, Mr. President, the honorable Senfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. Cowas] the other da, in that very able and exhaustive speech which he made on this subject, a speech which would do credit to any American states man that this Government has ever reduced, showed you that the number of people in these southern States who were real anxious for disunion was comparatively smal, and yet, although there were comparatively few who really desired the breaking up of the Union and who took steps to do it, your legislation proposes to deprive the whole mass of a constitutional right by a poor, miserable effort to amend the Constitution in the absence of everybody that is to be affected by it.v Now, suppose your constitutional amendment lpasses. If it passes, it ought to meet with the respect of somebody. It this constitutional amendment shall be presented to the States who are now represented in Congress and shall be adopted by simply 3/4ths of those States, is there anybody that will have the least respect for it? Then suppose you could go with the bayonet, which Itink now under the brighter dawn of a better day which we begin to realize you are not going to have the liberty to do; Suppose you were to go with the bayonet and present it to the other 11 States, and the acting under duress, not as free agents an as free men, could get some people in their section so miserable and poor in spirit and craven in soul as to vote to adopt in their Legislatures such an amendment, won (I it command the respect of anybody in this land? Not at all. Span your doors, sir; admit the representatives of the southern States to seats in this body; require no miserable de grading oath of them; administer to them the very oath that you 1st took when you entered this body, and the only oath that the Constitution of the U.S. requires, and the only oath which Congress has any right to exact, an oath to support the Constitution of the U.S.; an then if on think your Constitution is defective, if you think it needs further amendment, or if you have not sufficiently exhausted your bowels of mercy and love and kindness toward our sable friends whose shadows darken this gal ery everyday, submit your amendments to the States represented in the Congress of the U.S and if they choose, acting freely as citizens of their States, to agree to your amendments, it will command the respect of themselves, but still it will not comman mine. I should despise a people who would volunta rily assume so de ading a position. Mr. President, Thrill continue these desultory remarks for a moment longer, because another idea suggests itself to my mind, and because, perhaps, shall present a view whichI know will not be recoized by gentlemen on the other side, but which I never have had any doubt of since the commencement of this war. You said and this is not a new point, but we keep ringing it in your ears you said directly after the inception of this war, that it was prosecuted for certain purposes, not for the destruction of any institutions or rights of the States, but to restore the Union With all the rights of J unimpaired. I have looked carefully at the Constitution to see where it is that you get the right to make war upon a State. I can see no such right arising under any provision of the Constitution; but still I do see where the Federal Government has a right to resort to force to put down opposition to its constitutional authority. If I eld the views which I have read to you from Mr. Rawlc, I could not admitthe right in this Government to exercise force within a State except to put down insurrection or rebellion, orto suppress domestic violence, which are nothing but the operations of unorganized men, not the operations of political communities. But, sir, admitting the right in the Federal Government to use force to put down, ifyou please the unan imous opposition of the people O a State to remaining in the Federal Union, what is the basis of your authority? From what source is it derived? Why, Mr. President, if this had only been a league between the States, or the sim lest kind of confederation, it has been held, believe, by all writers that the violation of a league or of a treat as between independent nations gives the ri t to resort to force. There is another prinnciple applicable to nations as well as to individuals; it is this, that the great overruling principle of self preservation gives the right to use force. Applying this principle this war was treated in its earliest stages as an insurrection and rebellion, and I believe that the late POTUS never called it anything else than an insurrection. He may occasionally have called it a rebellion. It was treated in this Chamber as both an insurrection and rebellion. Here lately, when it becomes necessary to declare that these States are not entitled totation in Congress, some persons rwepresen O for merly adjudged it only to be an insuifection or a rebellion find out that it was a great civilWar. The mistake they make is not in calling it a great civilWar, but in attempting to apply to a civilWar between independent States, united together for common purposes, under a written constitution of government, the principles applicable to wars among foreign Powers; Now, Mr. President, here is a point to which I wish to call your attention an the attention of the country. If you have any right to make war to prevents. State seceding from the Union and setting up an independent government, you have that right only or the purpose of compelling that State to live u tot e contract that she made when she entere the Union with you, or because the exercise of that right is necessar to our self preservation. It gives you no righto government over that State, to hold it as your property, to appoint for it a territorial government, or to limit or abridge its right in any respect after the opposing forces shall have been once subdued and peace shall have been restored. Between political communities there is no chosen umpire to decide. Each decides for itself. This was the doctrine laid down by the fathers, and the doctrine cited the other day in the very able speech of the honorable Senfrom Maryland [Mr. JOHNSON] from the writings of Mr. Madison. The ju dicial powers of the U.S. only extend to questions of law and equity arising under the Constitution. While it is, therefore, competent to decide upon questions of law and equity between individua s, it has not the power to decide great political questions unless you find that power elegated to it in the Constitution. Then, sir, I liken this case of a controversy between oneportion of the States adhering to the federal government, and nnotherportion of the States attempting to throw 08 t cir obligation to that Federal Government, to the case of a contract between individuals. There is no common arbiter to decide between these States. If it was a case in chancery between individuals, one partyto the contract filin his bill of complaint, showing that he had aith fully performed his part of the agreement, might ask or a specific performance of that contract as against the defaulting party, and he might have a decree for the specific performance of that contract, but the chancellor could not interpolate an thing in that contract. It must be performe according to its terms. So among the States of this Union, if a controversy arises, as has arisen, the at chancellor or umpire to which an appeal is made is war. The same principle is applicable to a controversy of that ind, and in a tribunal of that kind, as is aplicable to the civil case to which I have re erred, in equity. Then your right to wage war was simply to compel the southern States to remain in the Union upon the terms that they agreed to live in the nion with you. The principle, then, for which I contend is this: that when once the military power of the socalled confederate States has beenput down; when there is no further resistance to the right ful exercise of the Federal authority, they are in the Union with all the constitutional rights of States in the Union just as fully and completely as if they had never attempted to secede. during the war honorable members of this body contended, just as inflexiblyas I did, that those States had no right to go out of the Union. You all said they could not go out of the Union. You all said they should not goout of the Union. A bloody war was waged for 4 years to decide that issue; and after it is decided by the wager of battle, and peace reigns throughout the whole land; when you find the people of those 11 States not only anxious to live in peace with {Ton and to resume their relations with the federal Government, but so submissive that when they are told by telegraph to make an amendment to their constitution the do it; when you find the people throughoutt e whole of those States mani esting such an anxious desire to get back to their fathers house, and to live in friendship and kindness with the other members of the family, you turn around and say no. You preach now practically what they asserted in the commencement of this controversy. They said they had gone out, and you said they had not. They said they would stay out, and mu said they should not and now, when they have shown that they could not et out, and when they are in the old house youglock u 11 rooms of the 36, an tell them t 10 shall not at present abide in the house; that they shall not come to the common table;they shall not participate in any of the advantages and blessings of the Government; but if they will do something else, something which they are under no obligation to do, an which would be destructive to their interests to do, then they may come here with their rep Representatives. What is that? “You have got some 4 million people dowa there that you have never thought entitled to exercise the right of voting; give them that power and come back.” on attempt to do by indirection what you must know you cannot do directly; for you must know that there is not one of those 11 States in whose sons there is a article of man hood that will ever submit to this amendment. Let them live in peace; that the oughtto do. Letthem obe the Federal law; t att e ought to do and i they be denied this righto representation, and are still taxed, let them be patient and learn to wait, for a brighter day is dawning. At the head of this nation today there is a man whose patriotism you never doubted in the darkest hour of the countrys troubles, who has placed himself fairly and squarely upon the great republican doctrine of representation accordingto population, and of the right of each and every State to decide for itself who shall, or who shall not, exercise the elective franchise within its borders., I have alluded to the fact that the present Executive has planted himself upon this great doctrine. I am not of his party. I did not vote for him. If there is any difficulty in the Republican party; if there is distraction in their councils, and divisions between them and the Executive, I have aright, without being of their party, to approve by my vote of a principle which I asserted and acted upon before the vision amen themselves. But, sir, is t iere any bonafide intention now of permitting these southern States to be rep presented in either House of Congress, at least until after the presidential election? Can it be said that the object of all this is political? Are these States to be denied the exercise of a clear constitutional right representation; are they to be taxed, and are their representatives to be ke t out of the Halls of Congress until there shal be another mockery of antion in favor of the elec rty Ill. power? i but does this mean? Al ough it is not in orderto refer to what has been said, as I understand the ruling of the Chair, in the HoRep, it is in order, I believe, to read a JtResolution reported by the committee of 15, and introduced by them in the HoRep, as follows: [femlned by theSennleand HoRep of the U.S.A. in Congress anembled, That whereas the people of Tennesseehave made known to the Congress of the U.S.es their desire that the constitutional relations heretofore existing between them and the U.S. may be fully establish edp.oapnudldaird on the 21ddayof February.1865. vote. adoptand ratify a constitution of government republicanin form and not in cousistent with the constituticn and laws of the U.S and a State government has been organized under the provisions thercof which said provisions, and the laws passedin urruance thereof.proclaim and denote loyalty to to Union: and whereas the peopleofTennesseearefound to bein a condition to exercise the functionsof a Statewithin this Union and can only exercise the same 25 the consent of the lawmaking powerof the U.S.: Therefore. The state of Tennesseeis herebydeclaredto beone of the U.S.A., on an equal footing with the other States upon the express conditionthat the(peopleof Tennessee willmaintain and enforce in goof faith their azisting constitution and laws. excluding thosewho have been engaged in rebellion against the U.S. from the exerciseof the elective franchisefor the respectivle ergodsof time exc u therein provided for. andaha ot esame personsfor the like respective criodsof time from c igl bility to ofllcp: and the State of Tennesseeshall never assumeouay any debt or oblikation contracted or mean in aid of the late rebellion: nor shall thesaid Stateeverin anymannerclaim from the U.S or make any allowance or compensation for slavesemanncipatdor liberated in any way whatever; which conditions shall be ratified by the Legislature of Tennessee, or the people thereof.as the Legislature maydirect. Before this act shall take effect. My 1st remark is that there is no constitutional authority in Congress to say upon what terms or conditions Tennessee shall be a member of the Federal Union. “ Congress may admit new States into this Union, says the Constitution. Congress may exercise delegated powers, and can exercise none but delegated powers. Under this dele ted authority congress did by act, aprove June 1, 1796, admit ennessee into the nion as a State. There is no power dele ated to congress to expel a State from the nion, or declare that a State once a member of the Union is out of it, orthe terms and conditions upon which a State shall remain in the Union. f Congress may do this in reference to Tennessee it may do soin reference to Pennsylvania or NewYork. When new States are admitted into the Union they are in the equals of the original States, and are no more subject to the power of Congress than are the original States. It will not be pretended that the original 13 States became members of the Union through the action of the lawmaking power of the Government. They became such members by their own separate ratification of the Constitution. This unconstitutional form for the recognition ofTennessee is to be the form to be a plied to Virginia, NCarolina, SCarolina, and Georgia, original States, the creators in part of Congress, an of the executive and judicial Depts of the Government, States without whose cooperative action conas would never have existed, or the Union itself have been formed. Congress never had authority to say whether one of these original States should be members of the Union or not, and yet Congress modestly asserts the power of deciding whether they are members of the Union. I believed when you were preaching Union and chargin others with being disunionists that you meant isunion, because I knew you were violating daily the constitution of the country, the bond of the Union, and by the exclusion of representatives from the southern States from Congress, and the assumption of the right to determine whether those States are in the Union, and the presentation oflthe JtResolution in reference to Tennessee, and the determination thereby that she is not in the Union and can only be so upon the conditions therein contained. the party in power conclusively prove themselves to be disunionists. What does the resolution repose? It de clares Tennessee to be one of the U.S.A., on an equal footing with the other States, and then annexes conditions providing in effect She shall never alter her constitution; that certain persons shall not be allowed to vote; and providing that certain persons shall not be a owed to hold office. All these are conditions annexed to a State on an equal footingh with the other States in the nion, and teresolution expressly declares that it shall not take effect until Tennessee agrees to accept the proposed terms of recognition. Why, sir, wou d Tennessee or any other State be in the Union on an equal footing with the other States, would s e be an equal member of this Union, with such clogs and conditions as these annexed? You of Connecticut can exclude negroes from voting; you may make a qualification as to white men; you may admit men who have been engaed in the rebellion to share in the councils O State and exercise the right of suffrage; but Tennessee, if she is in the Union, cannot be in the Union on equal terms with on. Sir, the time was when any State of this Union wIwouillld have spurned any such offeiof equality. not enter into the discussion of this resolution now. I only refer to it as of a kindred nature and character with the proposed amendment of the Constitution and the resolution which has passed both Houses saying that those States shall not be represented in congress until Congress shall pass an act declaring them entitled to representation. I have already detained the Senate too long, much longer than I anticipated. If I know my own heart, Mr. President, I have no other desire than to see this afflicted and distracted country once more in the enjoyment of all the blessings and all the constitutional rights which it enjoyed before the unfortunate civilWar. If I have referred to the action of States which never assumed to secede from the Union, it has been simply to show that ifthere has been fault in the southern section of the country, there has been fault among themselves. I have no doubt that there have been bad men in all sections of the country, that there have been unwise men in all sections of the country; that politicians for the sake of party triumph in their respective States have uttered sentiments, avowed doctrines, and advised a policy which had they known would have led to such disastrous consequences as have resulted from them, they would not have uttered or advised. But now, sir, the clangor of arms is hushed, peace reigns everywhere, and there is not a member in either House of Congress who believes that if the representatives of these southern States were admitted into these Halls constitution ally they have the right to be here there would be any attempt whatever again to disturb their eaceful relations to the Federal Union. They iine w that war has its calamities. There are too many hearths around which fond parents with bleeding hearts sit in anguish today; there are too many new and precious graves on southern soil; there are too many wounded and lame; there are too many young men in the fullness of promise and the brightness of hOpe who have gone down to an early grave for the people in the southern States again to your wish to renew this fruitless strife. Beware of danger, not from them, but from yourselves. Injustice and wrong cannot always be practiced with imunity. We are told by the Senfrom Massachusetts, [Mr. SUMNER] in the elaborate speech that he made and we heard it from the ena tor from Illinois, [Ma Yarns] that if the right of suffrage was not given to this negro race there would be trouble. I do notknow whether the remark was made as a threat or predicted as a consequence; but this I do know: if your policy is to be forced upon the count, and if you O keep from representation in Congress these States until they rati what they never will ratify, you may meet with trouble in quarters where you least expect it. I ask you, sir, to consider a moment these important questions. Suppose you, for the accomplishment of mere party purposes, exclude representatives from these 11 States from admission to the Halls of Congress until after the next presidential election; suppose the party opposed to you in the States which have never ecn in revolt nominate an electoral ticket; suppose that these excluded States also nomi nate an electoral ticket; and they. will, undoubtedly; and suppose those who are opposed to your policy shall have a majority of the lect oral College; suppose you simply, because you have kept out Representatives from the HoRep, should refuse to count those votes, and should declare that a minority can didate of the whole people of the U.S shall act as the chief executive officer of this Government for 4 years more, do you believe the people would submit to it? I do not know what they will do, but I know you had better not attempt it.