Mr. ELDRID E. Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to make an argument on the merits of this JtResolution on the present occaswn. On the 25th of January last I gave my views and made such arguments as occurred to me ugninsta similar proposition to one of these then reported from the JtCommee of 15 as an amendment to the Constitution. I have not had occasion to change the views I then expressed. I still believe, as I did then, that we ought not to amend the Constitution so as to provide a fundamental law for a people not represented in the action on that amendment. I believe now as I did then, that all the States formerly composing the Union were then and are now States of the Union. I do not believe the rebellion was successful in any manner to accomplish secesion. I do not believe it had the effect to take away any of the rights of the loyal citizens of any of the confe erate States, but that our success was the preservation of all their rights under the Constitution in the Union. But, Mr. Speaker, Iain opposed to the recommittal of this JtResolution, and I believe that is the pending question before the House. I do not Wish to express any sentiment of disrespect for the individuals composing that committee. I entertain for them entire respect as individuals, but I do aver that that committee has utterly and entirely failed to perform its duty, and has disappointed the country in the action it has taken. That committee today stands, in my judgment, between the representatives of the late socalled confederate States and the resumtion of their proper duties and functions in toUnion and in this Congress. That committee, sir, was raised and organized in the pirit of party. The resolution by which it was raised did not originate in the HoRep, but in a party can cus outside of this Hull, and for party ur oses and the committee in what it has one has acted in the interest of party. It has done perhaps what that caucus and those composing it expected. what has it done? It has deliberated for 5 months. It was by the resolution creating it organized for a special and specific purpose, distinctly and clearly expressed in the resolution, and I allege that after having performed that duty as required by the resolution, it ought to have reported and then been discharged. The resolution organizing the committee is as follows: "Reoolvedbythe Senate and HoRep in Congreu auembled.That a JtCommee of 15 members shall be appointed. 9 of whom shall be members of the House and 6 of the Senate, who shall inquire into the condition of the States which formed the socalled confederate Statesof America, and report whether they or any of them are entitled to be representedin either House of Congress, with leave to report at any time by bill or otherwise: and until such report shall have been madeand finally acted upon by Congress. iio member shall bereceived into cit ier Housefrom anyof the said so culled confederate States; and all papers relating to the reresontatives of the said States shall bereferredto the said committee without debate." Mr. Speaker, it appears that the duties of that committee were simply to inquire “whether the so ciilled confederate States of America are entitled to be represented in the 2 Houses of Congress.” ask, how have they discharged thatduty? Have they reported to the House upon the subject referred to them, that anyone of those States is or is not entitled to representation? Have they inquired, and if they have inquired, what information have they given us on that subject? Nothing, absolutely nothing. Their sessions have been secret; their acts and doings have been kc it from the public and from this House. An when they have reported, it has been only a mass of testimony I presume no Representative upon this floor has had time or patience or opportunity to read, if he has had the inclination. It has not yet been printed. It has not been laid before the House yet for any available purpose. There is no opportunity for us to judge what is the nature and character of that testimony. The Public Printer has not been able to print it before we are called upon to act upon measures said to be shown to he a necessity by it. The committee report no facts whatever and give us no conclusmn. They simple report amendments to the Constitution. Was that the purpose for which the committee was organ I Vas it to change the fundamental law of the land under which we of the loyal States assembled here? Was that the duty with which the committee was charged? Were they to inquire and report an entire change of the fundamental law of the nation which would de stroy the States and create an empire? I say they werecharged with no such duty. The 1 resolution cannot fairly be construed as giving I to the committee any such power, any such Jurisdiction. Maw. !.JZJ {L What, then, has been accomplished? Do we I understand from the committee today an better the situation of these States than we did at i the beginning of this Congress? Have they, enlightened us iiion the question whether those States are entited to representation in congress? I say, as I said before, the committee have not only stood in the way of the representation of those States in thisCongress, but they have stood in the way of properinformation to this House. If the members from the southern States applying for admission at the beginning of the session had been admitted to seats on the floor of Congress we should have gained some information. They would have been able to give us official information of the wants and necessities of those States in their character as representatives, upon their honor as such. But is committee has not deigned to give us a single fact, not even their conclusion upon the facts, if perchance there are facts, as I suppose there are, in that testimony which they have taken. I ask, then, and I ask sincerely, has the committee entitled itself to have this matter recommitted to it for further action, and for what purpose, what action, is the recommitment to e made 3 Is it that the committee may go on adinfinitum to take testimony of such persons as they may see fit to be used in the coming election, without giving us the benefit of their conclusions, of their consultations, and of their examinations? When this committee was at 1st raised it was professedly for the purpose of aiding in the restoration of the Union, and providing for the representation of the ab sent States, but it has become only a partisan machine in the interest of the Republican party. Its effort and purpose, if we mayjudge from the reports which it as made, have been, not to furnish a way of restoration, not to as certain if they were entitled to representation, but to prevent or delay indefinitely both representation and restoration. Every report that has been made has shown upon its face the evidence of a determination to delay, if not to destroy and the chairman of the committee, in his speech of yesterday at the opening of this debate, said that the southern representatives must not be permitted to come in until we will it. The committee stands, therefore, resisting the restoration of this Union, and I hope that no further business will be referred to it. It has rendered itself unworthy of the high duty with which it was charged by the resolution which I have read. It has not sought to give us information. It has not soughtto furnish us with the evidence whether these States were fit for or entitled to representation. But it is reporting measure after measure that must cause not only delay during the present session of Congress, but delay even beyond this congress. To adopt the remark of the gentleman troin Pennsylvania [Mr. Burns] the committee has been seeking how not to restore rather than to restore the Union. Every obstruction, every obstacle which they could contrive, they have placed in the way of restoration. Now, is it proposed to restore the Union by adopting this amendment to the Constitution 3 I do not believe that the proposition looks to any such purpose; it has no such object. But the committee, seeing the hand writing on the wall, seeing the public sentiment of the country in favor of restoration, seeing the disrepute into which it was fallin, seeing the character which it had attained before the country, sought to appease and allay that popular sentiment by acompromise in regard to these questions of difference among themselves. Wli is it that the Gentfrom PennsylvaniagMrSri wsxs] ivesup universal suffrage? Why is it that he another gentlemen give up universal confiscation? Why is it that other gentlemen give up universal butchery of that people? It is a compromise of what they call principle for the purpose of saving their party in the next fall election. The Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. GARFIELD] said yesterday that they must strike out the 3rd section or the peoplewould be suspicions that this thing was done in the interest of party. Suspiciousl Does not the proposed amend 4ment carry on its face the evidence that it originated in the interest of rty? It is re 1 ported and speeches are madhaupon it in the interest of party and for party purposes. 4 The chairman of the committee [Mr. STI VEKS] tells us that these States are not necessary to be counted in the submission of this constitutional amendment. He scouts and scorns the idea that they are entitled to the right of rejecting or approving it and here is another inconsistenc on e face of the resolution itself, which in the preamble reads, “ that the following article he proposed to the Legislatures of the several States as an amendment to the Constitution.” These States are recognized in the resolution itself; every section, inc, and sentence recognizes them as States in the Union. The word "State" is used in the 1st section, which says, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without ue process of law.” That has reference only to the southern States, for there was never any necessity to apply it to the northern States. So in the 2nd section the word “State” is used in the same sense, and also in the 3rd section, admitted on all hands to apply not to the northern but to the southern States exclusively and yet the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. STEVENS] tells us that the southern States are not to be counted in adopting or rejecting this proposed amendment. The 2nd section of the JtResolution is also inconsistent with the action of the committee. They reported the bill known as the “civil rights bill, ” which has become a law. What necessity is there, then, for this amendment to the Constitution if that bill was constitutional at the time of its passage? Is it not an admission that it was not? Ay, but the Gentfrom Pennsylvania gives us here another party reason. He tells us that the time may come when the Democrats will get pessession of Congress, and if you depend upon a mere act of Congress, that itwill be repealed; and he seeks to evade the popular will and to thwart the popular desire by placing in the Constitution now, while a portion of the States are unrepresented, an amendment to the constitution, so that the people cannot have their way about it. This is of itselfan admission that the whole scheme is in the interest of party alone, to preserve and perpetuate the party idea of this Republican disunion party. But there is one thing about this resolution which is most remarkable if those 11 States are out of this Union, and it is this: that not withstanding the proposition here to amend the Constitution in 3 particulars there is not yet any plan or proposition whatever reported by this committee for the restoration of this Union, or for those States to be represented in (Jon gress. If the Gentfrom Pennsylvania is right, and these 11 States are still out of the Union, adopt this amendment without their voice being heard, if you please, adopt it by the vote of 19 States, and stil those States, according to the gentlemans theory, will be out of the Union. Where, then, is your reconstruction, where your restoration in this JtResolution? Where has the committee shown any disposition, any desire for a restoration of the Union? Have they up till today reported any measure whereby a resto ration of the Union is to be accomplished, whereby these States are ever to be restored and recognized as in the Union? How, under the theory of the gentleman that they are not to be counted or considered, because out of the Union, are they over under this measure to become members of this Union? If the are not new members will the adoption of this amendment to the Constitution make them members of this Union? Certainly not. They are no more in the Union then or entitled to representation in conss then than now. ere, then, is ano er oss inconsistency, showing the purpose and grflic object of thin measure. The 3rd section is admitted even by the friends of the other 2 to carry upon its face the purpose of disfranchising the co gle of these 11 States and preventing them om taking part in the representation of this count:. t is said by the Gentfrom Ohio tint if that section is not stricken out the people will come to the conclusion that this isaparty measure. Sir, I have said no one can doubt it in the light of the history of this committee. It was organized in a party caucus. The resolution authorizing it was brought into the House by the man selected to do it by that caucus. It was presented to the House and supported solely by the caucus party; and imme iately everything brought into the House having relation to the representation of the southern States in this Congress was consigned without debate to this vortex of ruin, of de struction, and of disuiiion. We have therefore been able to gain no information from any source on the subject of reconstruction or maturation or representation of those States. The resolution may have been differently intended; but from its face no one can come to the conclusion that it intended anything more than that the committee should be authorized to inquire into the fact as to whether these States were legally and constitutionally entitled to be represented in either House of Congress and yet the committee, arrogating to themselves alIpower upon this subject, have repeatedly reported amendments to the constitution without giving us one fact or one reason for it, or any information as to when our troubles will be ended and the Union restored. The people of this country, as Iremarked in the beginning, are dissatisfied with that committee. It has disappointed the country. Go today, if you dare, and submit to the people of the U.S. the question whether that committee shonld longer )0 intrusted with this subject, and what do you think the vote would be? I tellyou that it would be ten to one that the committee had disa pointed the expectations of the country; that it should be discharged; that its duties were ended; that it had been a failure; that it had stood in the way of restoration and peace. I tell on further that the people of this country omand the present, immediate resto ration of this Union and on will find, when the elections come aroun again, that they will speak in thunder tones to on politicians. You cannot comromise with t cm by surren dering principle For mere expediency, for more party purposes. You will have to face the music, for the people will demand it of you. They have struggled long and ardently for the Unionthey have sacrificed lives and treasure for the 1Union; the have been ardently devoted to the Union, an they will not surrender it for party purposes; they will not consent to keep the people of the southern States in bond age, such as Ireland has suffered so long, for the mere purpose of retaining a party in power. I do not wonder that the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. SrsVENS] prophesied the time as not being more than 3 or 4 years distant when the people will place in power men who will respect the constitution, who will respect the Union and the sacrifices that have been made for it, and who are willing to restore, preserve, and perpetuate that Union.