Mr. KASSON. Mr. Speaker, it is altogether becoming that a gentleman who has made an attack such as that to which we have just list ened should protest to my friendfrom Indiana against allowm me a word in reply. I am in the habit, sir, o speaking yes or no when yes or no tells the truth; so am in the habit of telling in more words what the truth is when yes or no does not do it. I commend the radtice to my colleague from Iowa. Never have I answered the argument of a colleague of mine upon this floor, nor taken up a discussion with them. I have held to the maxim that “ it is a dirty bird that fouls its own nest, ” and I commend the maxim to my colleague, and shall he encouraged in it by the people of his district. But whenhe iliu s the outlet at me when he stands up to say provoed this issue, I deny it, and make the issue directly here and now, and appealtothe Honsewhetherlmadeanyissue of veracity upon this floor. When he asked me, upon my yielding the floor to him, whether this subject was not in issue, I read the platform of the party on the subject. I told him what was the various county action upon the plat form. I told him the result in his own county. I showed how it was in the issue by the facts in the case. He says that he did not have anything to do with the gettin up of the resolutions at the meeting at which i he spoke. All I have to say is, that I have letters from citizens of his own town on my table which charge him, 1st, with getting upt ie mcetingfor the purpose of opposition to the President and to mysel, and 2ndl, with writing the offensive resolutions. [Lang ter.] One of the letters goes further, and says, in addition to what I havestated, that one of the members of the committee, in cousequence of the indignation expressed in that town, adeome out with a card, in some way apologizing for the action taken by them. Not only that; but since he has foolishly declared that my district does not indorse me, I will add that these letters from his own town declare that he could not be elected as alderman in any ward of the city of Davenport toda. [Lau hter.] Now, sir, the (Iifference between him and me is this: he says I do not represent my district. I have shown that he came within a few votes of losing the banner county of his own State and of his own residence, because of the action which he took in his own county. He does not deny it. I do deny his charge and challenge him to the proof that my district does not support me in the position I have taken. He says that I took the occasion to be absent from the canvass. I did o across the plains, and I do not cease to the God ibr the years that it has added to m life and I tell my colleague that I am indebte to it for the vim with which I am now enabled to nail his charges to the floor. Before I left, the Governor of that State and the chairman of the Republican State central committee desired of me, if I should not be present in the canvass, at least to issue an address. I did write an addreI hold it in my hand which the entic man refers to as a letter; and in that adrcss I urged our people to hold together. I shall trouble the House with only a single sentence of it: “Let us continue in union among ourselves. tolerant of mine r difference s of opinion, that national union and liberty may be confirmed by our united labors. This address was issued to the people of my district for the purpose of resisting the efforts then made to brea us in pieces. In that address I cited Mr. Lincolns opinion and Mr. Jeffersons opinion, and said would go the hen th of hot for negro suffrage that is, qualitic suffrage. I came out cIcarly to the extent of my influence and action in that caser by asking, as I stated here today, thntlhe word white” should be stricken out of the constitution in order to allow qualified suffrage, for which in this address I expressly declared my self. Unless I am very much mistaken, there was no essential difference between a published letter of a Senfrom my State an my own position in that canvass. Now, air, is it fair, in View of the treatment I have uniformly extended to my colleague, for him to raise personal issues with me in the manner thathe has done? Am I entitled to be treated with such discourtesy? He alone has raised the issue. The question of negro suffrage was before the people of my State in the manner I have stated. One gentleman who has just been elected a Senfrom that State declared, as I was informed, that the question was one practically to be submitted to the people, and that when it came to be submitte, he added humorously, “I shall vote just as I please.” Now, in view of these facts, I deemed it necessary to state that the issue in my State so far as this issue was allowed, actually turned on the question of amending our constitution so that some negroes might vote, and it did not turn upon the question of allowing all negroes to vote. I am with the people on the question of qualified suffrage, which is as for as the platform oes; For it is simply to strike out the word white, ” which was necessary in order to have qualified suffrage.I trust the House will pardon me for takin up this much time in personal explanation. would not even now use any discourtesy to the gentleman who has provoked this debate. I wish to stand simply right upon the record, touching the action of my own district and the confidence of the people in me. There is a better tribunal than the Gentfrom Davenport, [Mr. Furor1] who very nearly lost his own county, with its noble Union majorities, as he knows, in consequence of his views on this subject and I believe when it comes to be known what the action of my State will be, that it will establish essentially the principle adopted by Massachusetts, and cement and perpetuate the institutions of this country, by making intelli gence and virtue. as far as practicable, the basis of the right of suffrage among this people.