Mr. SUMNER. So I understood. Of course that opens no question of the merits, and I do not propose to en an thin on the merits. I know not that I shall e able to take any part in this debate; but I cannot allow the resolution to be taken up without expressing my own individual opinion that it would be better if its consideration were postponed still longer. I believe that the country has gained much by the postponement that has already been had. On a former occasion I stated that we were able to have a better proposition at the end of April than we had at the end of March, and I believe now we shall be able to accept a better proposition just as the weeks proceed. We she.I be better preared for thisquestion next week than we are this week, and t ie week after next we shall be better prepared than next week. Why, sir, here is a vast mass of testimony which has been taken. It has been laid in driblets, if I may so express myself, before Congress and the country, and never gathered together as a whole; it has never been analized; no conclusions have been presented from that testimony; and yet I ta c it that testimony was taken for some purpose, doubt less to enlighten Congress and enlighten the country; but the Senate is now asked to proceed without the opportunity of considering that testimony in any mature form. I think, sir, it is a mistake that we are asked to proceed with it under such circumstances. think, sir, that delay for the arrangement of that testimony, and to the end that it may be presented in proper form for our consideration would be wisdom. I think it would be the highest statesmanship. I think from a consideration of that testimony we shall be prepared to decide better than we are now, not only what we ought to do, but what we can do. For instance, here is a very considerable question which we shall be called to discuss, as to the extent to which certain persons engaged in the rebellion shall be excluded from the suffrage. I doubt not that the Senate is better prepared to discuss that question this week than it. was last week, and I am sure it will be better preared to discuss it next week than this week; an my reason is that the evidence on the subject is daily accumulating. It so happens that I heard last evening, myself, ver important testimony from gentlemen in w orn I have ver peculiar condeuce, just from the South, with regard to public opinion there, especially among those who have been recently in rebellion, all tending to show the necessity of sdme counteracting regulations or requirements on our part. I say such evidence is constantly accumulating. I wish that conas may have the full benefit of it, to the end that what we do shall be well done. The question is presented whether we shall proceed on a principle of inclusion or of exclusion. The Senfrom Nevada [Mr. STEWART] adopts the principle of inclusion without exclusrou. There are others who are disposed to adopt the principle of exclusion without inclusion; in ct or words, they would exclude certain rebels, but would not include those loyal persons whose misfortune it is that they were born with a skin not colored like our own. Now, sir, for myself it seems to me we have got to adopt both principles, the principle of inclusion and the principle of exclusion; but I do not think that the Senate is at this moment so well informed with regard to the facts which necessarily underlie the decision of that very great question. It is one of the greatest questions that has ever been presented in the history of our country or of any country. It should be approached carefully and solemnly, and with the assurance we have before us all the testimony, all the facts, everything that by any possibility can shed an lig 1; upon it. Have we all that testimony? I doubt; and I content myselfnow with simply entering my own individual caveat against what seems to me the something like recipitation with which the measure is hurried.