Mr. ROGERS here addressed the House. [His remarks will be found in the Appendix.] Mr. Speaker: The resolutions proposing an amendment to the Constitution which were the product of the committee of 15, and which were accompanied by 2 bills for passage by Congress, and which were reported by that committee as a settlement of the disagreeing elements among the radicals on the committee, were some wee sa 0 reported to both Houses for action. This I‘Fouse had the magnanimity to allow a few members to make half hour s eeches on the reported amendmena and then , after consuming a few hours in debate, the master of the House determined to move the previous question, and further debate was. stopped. The amendment, precisely as it came from the committee of 15, went through the House, under the party whip, by a strict party vote, every radical and pretended would lie called conservative Republican voting for it. One would have supposed, if he did not know the cringing disposition to radical dictation of the Republican members, that they voted for it because they believed it contained the true principles upon which honest men should base their action, and met with their decided appro bation. Andasthe celebrated committee, noted for its secret in uisitions, had recommended it, and every member upon the committee but the 3 Democrats agreed to it; it was supposed by honest men that the committee who agreed to it and the radicals who voted for it in this body would at least stand by and sustain it thereafter. But the amendment reported by the committee has been ignored by its own fathers and a secret inquisition of Senators held over its dead carcass. The 3rd section of the com: mittee’s bantling has been struck out, because it was not considered safe to go before the people upon a section which disfranchised the voters of the entire insurgent States until 1870. That amendment, in addition to the 3rd section, simply embodied the gist of the civil rights bill made the payment of the rebel debt and the claim for pay for slaves void, and gave authority to Congress to pass appropriate legislation to enforce the amendment. The 1st proosition was tame in iniquity, injus tice, an violation of fundamental liberty to the one before us. This proposition makes 4 million negroes citizens, not only of the U.S., but of each and every State, and disqualifies from holding office forever nearly all the influential men of the South, those who are the men having the influence to get through their Legislatures a reasonable proposition. This proposition upsets the old oundation stones of our republic and laughs and scoffs at the wisdom an patriotism of the framers of our present organic law. It destroys that elementary principle which for over 70 years has lain at the foundation of our happiness, that representation should be founded on population and introducesasystem which says you must allow negroes to vote or be deprived of the share in the Government which the fathers of the Republic designed should be enjoyed by you. I repose, sir, to examine into the reasons for the introduction into this House of this new issue of disunionism and treason to the Constitution of our’fathers. I intend to confine myself mainly to the changes which have been made by a secret cau cus of the Senate to the amendment as it was orivinally presented by the committee of 15, and let me sa that it is an unpleasant position for a member of Congress to be placed in to make an argument against a measure which has already been arranged by a secret party caucus who have determined to put it through, whatever arguments maybe may c by its oppo nents and however patriotic their motives may be. But, sir, I do say, that although upon this side of the House we are in a hopeless minority, we are yet the representatives of 2 million voters and of nearly 1/2 of the population of the adherin States and more than a majority of the whole people of the whole Union; and although the majority can in secret caucus so arran e their tactics as to force the action of the house upon such measures as the may see fit, under tawhip of caucul discipline, the minority have no such power and all that they can do and what it is their bounden duty to do is to protect and vote a inst action of this character, and ask the house as the Senate was asked by members of the Op position, that each man individually shall exer ise his judgment upon this proposition to change the charter of our liberties, according tot e dictates of his own conscience, free from the controlling influence of caucus. If you look at the history of this committee of 15 from its organization down to the present time you will find that the whole object of its organization was to carry into effect party purposes, to affect the fall campaign, and to disinember and dissolve the American Union. Sir, before the House was organized this committee of 15 had been organized in a secret caucus, with a veil of darkness thrown over it; and in the dark recesses of Radicalism with closed doors and darkened windows, where the people were not permitted to look in upon the commencement of proceedings which were designed to overthrow the elementary foundations of their happiness and national greatness, the radical members of the 2 Houses establilshed, for the 1st time in the history of this country or of any other republic, a secret committee to control and dictate to the 2 Houses of Congress what action they should take on the great measures growiii out of the contest of the last 4 years. An, sir, the resolution appointing this committee was hurried through without allowing us one minute for debate, under the whip and s or of party organization. When the light of pay shall brea in upon the records of this committee, and the people are permitted to know its proceedings as I know them, it will be seen that it many times agreed to report its final action; but, sir, the fear of not being able to deceive the people with them many times induced it to reconsider. At one time universal negro suffrage was agreed to he reported as a condition to southern representation; but it was soon seen by it that the people could not be deceived by so plain an issue as that, and that to expose the true doctrine of the dominant party in that way.would be certain defeat. It finally, on the 31st of January last, made its report, and brought forth its 1st child, which was to be baptized in the name of hilanthropy as the last offspring of a putative ather. I supposed the issue was then made up. The command of the committee was given to the radical members of this House, and they had nothing to do but obey. That proposition was a proposed amendment to the Constitution, in substance the same as the section of the article before us regulating representation. The proposition of danuary 31 declared that if the elective franchise was denied or abridged in any State on account of race or color or previous condition of slavery, then that whole race or color should not be counted in the basis of representation. There was no material difference between that and this. The party lash was again a plied, and the previous question used to g d, it passed this‘lIonse by the overiivfiielming vote of the entire radical and socalled conservative element, amid the shouting of the negroes and radicals in the galleries and waving of hand kerchiefs. It went to the Senate, and there the 1st offspring of the committee was stran gled, though not killed, and instead‘ of receiving a 2/3rd vote, as required by the constitution, it. got barely a majority. The committee became nervous, and determined that the Sarty lash should be more thoroughl a plie, and that Mr. Summit and the ratheais who defeated it in the Senate should yield their Opposition o eread out of the party. Its in set and finally hatched a new progeny, which contains in substance and effect the same provision as to representation, except that it now says that if the ell ctive franchise be denied in any State to males of the age of 21 years representation shall be denied in the proportion that the males thus excluded from votchute, and in shall bear to the white and black male in abitants of the a e of 21 years. That 2nd banting went to the Senate to be christened, but in some particulars it was too weak, and in the one isfranchising the rebels too hold to uit the Senate. It was soon ascertained that it could not get a two. 3rd vote there. The committee of 15 became gloomy, and it saw it could not please 2/3rds of the Senate and finally gave up its work of destruction in despair. The radicals saw that a failure to agree upon some proposition would be death to their party. They took new courage, withdrew it from the senate, and consigned it to a secret caucus of radical Senators. For 3 days the Senate was silent, while a caucus was convened in a private room away from the view of those who did not agree with the radicals there; and with closed doors, secured by bolts and locks, where even a reporter was not admitted, in the silence of an inquisition of death, they concocted the destruction of the great charter of American freedom, and brought forth, as the emblem of centralization and destruction of the elementary rights of the States, the article now before us. he Constitution declares that no amendment shall be proposed without the vote of 2/3rds of both Houses. Yet a mere majority of a party caucus proposes this amendment, and the individual opinion of each member of that party must consent and ratify. That, sir, in e cct is an amendment proposed to be submitted to the Legislatures, not by the convictions of honest minds, but by the coercive power of a caucus majority. Shall our charter of liberty be amended in a secret cabal with closed doors? What would the American people think if we were to close the doors of this house and in secret amend the work of their fathers? They would burst open the doors and demand to know what their servants were doing. The doors of the Senate, after the work of death to constitutional liberty had been inaugurated by this secret cabal, were opened for the consideration of the work. Party corruption had done its work and the dictates of honest consciences had been smothered. Mr. SUMNER and his followers, who defeated the 1st proposition, trembled with fear and unblushingly voted this monstrous abortion through the Senate with the aid of those who supported the 1st. It now became necessary to manipulate the House. It had given its views upon the proposition of the committee. But this forcing process begun. The House are ordered to cringe and cower before the awful power of the honorable Gentfrom Pennsylvania, [Mr. STEVENS.] The orders had I been delivered and must be obeyed. Radicalism walks forth with bold imunity, and the last link of conscience is ordered to be broken. But, sir, that caucus we never shall forget; it was the crowning act of the radicals in Congress; it was one more obstacle to the restoration of the Union. If the POTUS could have looked in upon that body then he would have been reminded of the time when history says the Romans danced and shouted over the downfall of liberty, made memorable by the love of centu i'ies. I am here to protest against amending the great charter of our liberties by a secret cau cus. Every member, under the duty which he owes to'his own conscience, to his country, and to his oath, ought not to be controlled by secrct caucus, and should vote according to the dic States of his own judgment. He should not be controlled by secret cabals in his action, especially in matters pertaining to the funda mental principles which lie at the base of the liberties of the people, and which were founded in old revolutionary times and handed down to this generation, and which this generation should hand down to their descendants lllllm‘ paired as a great jewel and legacy of liberty. I say this amendment would never pass by ! the necessary 2/3rds if free from the control of party whip and party tics. It does not meet the deliberate judgment of 2/3rds of either House. To show that my assertion is true, I refer to the language used on the question now before the House by Hon. Mr. SHERMAN on the Doc little amendment to this proposition. Mr. Doou'rrui proposed an amendment that representation should be based upon the voting population of the States. That would make representation equal in all the States. The eastern and middle States would not have a controlling influence because of their populntion of women and children there, as t icy will have under this. SCarolina, Massachusetts, and other States would stand upon an equal footing before the law in regard to representation, on the broad ground that representation is based upon the voting population of the State. I ask gentlemen of this House, and especially those on the other Side, to listen fora momentto the language of the honorable gentleman, Mr. Susanna] a member of the Senate of the U.S and one of its most prominent members, who declares in that ho y that he yields his own judgment, that he (gives up his own views, that he abdicates the My which he believes he owes to his country and his conscience, in order that he may give in his adherence to the doctrines of a secret cabal or caucus of radicals, assembled in secret, away from the gaze of the people of the U.S. to concoct this scheme of disunion, and overthrowthe fundamental principles of this Government. The distinguishe Senfrom Ohio [Mr. SHERMAN] said: “I shall detain the Senate but for it momentto explain the reasonsfor the vote I shall givein opposition to what is mypwn deliberate jndumenton the question now pending. The more I think of this question the more I am convinced that the true basis of representation in the present condition of affairs is the number of male citizens who under the laws of the States are allowed to vote. This proposition. it seemsto me is a simple one plain and obvious. which puts a citizen in one State on a footing of precise equality with a citizen in every other State, which equalizes the political power of all citizen and which will destroy all sectional animosity. IT this amendment bentlOplOdfl citizen of the State of Ohio has precisely the same political powerwith a citizen of the state of Massachusetts or of South Cnrolinn. no more and no use. The same number would be required in each State to elect a member of Congress. The number of citizens could be easily ascertained by the census, and the censns rolls could be attestedvery readily at each annual election. This proposition is simple, plain, and obvious: and iet‘under the necessdyjn which whcare now placed shall feel called upon to vote against it." Again, he said: " That is a plain and obvious principle and ifthat principle was adopted the southern States would feel no localjealousy. They could not fecl any. No State and no community would have the right to complain, The laws of the U.S. would fix the naturalization of the foreigner; birth would fix the citizenship of the native; there could be no controversy. Then every citizen would stand equal before the law with preciselythe same political power, no more and no less. Isny. therefore. that this is the only amendment to the propositions now submittedto us that]: desire to make: but I feel boundby the action of political friends to vote against this amendment. Place my vote distinctly on this ground.” I ask you, what security or safety is there for the people of the U.S., what confidence for the protection of the lives and liberties of the people of this country is to he placed in the Senate of the U.S., a body always heretofore held in regard on account of its wisdom and patriotism, when one of the chief spokesmen of the dominant party in that body rises and tells the people that he votes against his deliberate judgment and the convictions of his conscience, simply because a majority of his brother Senators, members of the same party, have assembled in secret conclave and decided that he shall so vote? Why sir, if such legislation as this is to be gicouraged and upheld, this nation will die and we shall all be wretched mourners around its tomb. What would you think of a, jar deliberating on the life of a citizen who should agree to give up their own convictions of duty because a majority of the jury should so direct, and by their verdict conemn an innocent man to death? The constitution meant to guard itself against amendments by requiring the deliberate judgment of each Senator and member acting solely each for himself. In AndrewJohnson is our only safety. His policy alone can protect our liberties. I trust that in the providence of God he will have support from the people sufficient to save our country from wreck. I believe he will yet work outa bright destiny for the American people. Let me tell gentlemen upon the other side of the House that they are now legislating for those who are to come after them; and I appeal to them, although I may appeal in vain, to act upon the deliberate convictions of their judgment and conscience, and not to change the fundamental law of this country and destroy the constitutional equilibrium of the States merely because a secret caucus of a portion of the members of the U.S. Senate may dictate to them so to do. There is nothing which the Constitution guards with greater care than an amendment to it. It provides that upon a proposition to amend it, unlike a proposition of mine r importance, a 2/3rd s vote shall be requisite, and that the vote ofeach Senatoror member, “yea” or “nay, ” upon a proposition of so vitally important a character, shall be recorded upon the journal. A 2/3rd s vote of both Houses in favor of a proposition for a constitutional amendment is necessary before such a proposition can be submitted to the States for ratification. I am here to denounce this attempt to stifle the common sense, reason, judgment, and understanding of the honorable gentlemen upon that side of the House who represent the Republican or socalled Union party of this country. I allow my action to be influenced by no caucus in decidin upon a proposed amend ment to the organic law of the land. I have a duty which I owe to my country and to those who are to come after me. I owe it to the sacred memory of the revolutionary dead, whose glorious deeds of courage and patriot ism constitute the proudest inheritance of the American citizen, that the work of our faters should not be amended but by honest individual conviction. In voting upon a question affecting the great Magna Charta 0 our liberties, the bulwark of our rights, I act from the die States of an honest judgment, exerted with all the imartiality and candor which God has enabled) me to exercise. I ield not to the dictates of any party caucus that may attempt to control my action upon so vital a question. Sir, I say that no Senator, or member of this House, is accountable to any caucus upon a question like this. Our only responsibiity is to the 100s of 1,000s of brave men who fought the recent war to a trium hant conclusion, and the millions of people throughout the country who are looking to us to act honestly, conscientiously, and wisely upon this great question. I understand the controlling influence of party caucuses and party conventions. I know they may be necessary in ordinary and primary matters. I am always willing to yield to their action upon mere party principles embodied in a platform, and a ways do 6 eerfully sustain and abide by their action. I believe a man is in honor bound to support any convention in which he participates; I mean a mere party convention, held to lay down the doctrines of a party. But he is a parasite who would yield his convictions upon fundamental principles to any caucus or convention or party.% will not support a flagrant violation of the funda mental law of the Government in order that my party may secure or retain political power. If t cy should ever attempt that, as this article does, I would withdraw from the party organization and declare my soul shall not be scared with the sin of yielding u my own convictions i upon fundamental principles to others, who were not more likely to be right than I. Why, sir, we go so far as to say in this constitutional amendment that everybody who shall be naturalized or born in the U.S shall not only be a citizen of the U.S., but a citizen of each and every one of the several States. Everybody here knows that under the old Constitutution now proposed to be amended a man may be a citizen of the U.S and yet have no citi nship in any State. What is there more vita, what is there more important than for a State to have the control of its own local affairs? Yet here we have a proposition to he submitted to the States to deprive the people of the States of that right. And we not only do that, but it is proposed to exclude nearl all the able men of the South from holding either Federal or State office. I give you warning that no southern State except Tennessee, where despotism reigns, will ratify or indorse any such amendment. You do not want them to ratify it, and have placed it there on purpose to prevent them from ratifying it. It not only excludes all those who Went voluntarily into the rebellion, but all those who were involuntarily forced into it. I hope some gentleman on the other side will have the jus tice at least to offer an amendment that those shall not be excluded who Were involuntarily forced into the rebellion by conscrition or otherwise. You do not intend to a low the South representation at all, and the whole object of this legislation is to give you an excuse to keep the Union divided. If you considered each one of your sections impertant to the country, you would have submitted to the legislatures each section as a separate article, so that the States that objected to some could have ratified others. The 1st 12 amendments to the Constitution were submitted separately and ten were ratified and 2 rejecte. This is a revolutionary movement to forestall the action of the people by calling the present Legislatures together to pass upon them. They never will be ratified by 3 uarters of the States. None of you expect they will. The repudiation of the rebel debt and the validity of the Federal debt would meet with the approbation of every State; yet you link them with the rest to prevent any from being ratified. {end of appendix insert.}