Mr. FINCK. Mr. Chairman, when the 38th Congress adjourned, large armies were in the field resisting the authority and jurisdiction of the U.S. We were then in the midst of the most terrible civilWar that has ever afilicted any people. Sir, I congratulate you, and I congratulate the country, on the fact that this war has terminated successfully to the arms of the Federal Government, and that today there is not a single arm raised to resist the authority of the U.S., within the limits of the Republic. Peace once more blesses the American people. But, sir, allow me to inquire why it is that the States which have not been represented here for the last 4 years, still continue unrepresented on this floor? Is it possible that, having failed successfully to resist the jurisdiction of the U.S., and break up the Union, that they now stubbornly refuse to send representatives to the national Legislature, and to return to their duties and obligations to the Federal Government? No, sir; such is not the case. The people of these States, having failed in the mad schemes organized by their leaders, have wisely and really abandoned all further resistance, and have, with annanimity and frankness worthy of the highest commendation, determined to yield a cheerful obedience to the constitution and laws of the U.S., and to discharge their duties and obligations as loyal citizens. Why, then, sir, are they not represented on this floor? Sir, during the continuance of the late terrible struggle, I looked forward with the most hopeful expectations to the period when the war should cease by the complete vindication of the national authority, and all the States he represented once more in this Hall. We have, by the blessing of Heaven, lived to see the termination of the war, but we meet in a time of profoundence, and find that 11 of the States of this Union have no Representatives on this floor. Sir, allow me again to inquire why this is so? Mr. Chairman, it is because there exists within this Union a body of men who are today, as the have always been opposed to the Union, uness they can mold and shape its policy to suit their peculiar views. Can it be possible, sir, that after a struggle of 4 years after the sacrifice of half a mi hon of brave an heroic men, and the expenditure of 4000 millions of treasure, after the war has been brought to successful termination, and the flag of the Union, and none other, floats from the capitol of every State, still nearly 1/3rd of the States are to be deprived of representation in the national councils? Sir, I protest against this attempt to subvert the true principles of this Government, and thus seek to separate States from it which belong to it and to preserve which, a 4 years war has been waged. What was the avowed and proclaimed object of the war? For what did our brave and gallant men fight and die? It was, sir, to preserve this glorious Union, to maintain and vindicate the Jurisdiction of the U.S. This was distinctly and plainly announced in the resolution passed, by almost entire unanimity at the extra session of congress in 1861, in these patriotic words: “That in this national emergency. Congress will for at all feelings of mere passionor resentment, and will recollect only its duty to the country: that the war is not wagedo n ourpart in any spirit of oppression nor in any spirit of conquestorsubingntiomnor for the purpose of OVOIUHOWIDRine tIe rfennlz with the rights or establishedinstitutions of those states, but to defendand maintain thpsupremacyof the constitution and preservethe Union with all the dlgnlt, equality and rights of the severalStatesunimpaircr: itind assoonasthesapbjoctsare attained the war ought o cease. The great issue submitted to the settlement of the sword was that of the Union. The in surgents sought to break it u, and the U.S. sought to preserve an maintain it. Our arms triumphed, and our purpose was accomplished, namely, the preservation of the Union. The States which passed ordinances of secession, and attemptedto withdraw from the Union, have failed in their purposes. They have never been out of the Union, but have always continued to be, and are today, States within the Union. This doctrine I understand the distinguished Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. Srsvsxs] controverts and in his speech delivered on last Monday, takes the same round which he an nounced in his speech, deivered in this House 2 ears ago, namely, that the insurgent States, by their acts of secession and organized rebellion, became a separate government; that they were outside of the Union; and their armies having been defeated and conquered, we now hold these States as conquered territories, and that this Government has the right, by the law of nations, to treat the people of, these States as a subjugated people; an that before they can resume their former relations with the General Government, these States must be readmitted into the Union as new States. Sir, the distinguished gentleman by his argument has admitted that secession was an accomplished fact, and has added another exam pie to the common saying, that extremes meet; for his views on this point coincide with those of the most rabid secessionists. l. The gentleman has recognized by his argument, that most dangerous of political heresics, the right of secession, which is at war with the safety and perpetuityof the union of these States. I deny, sir, that these States, or either of them, were ever out of the Union. The Union has never been, and I most earnestly trust never will be, dissolved. the ordinances of secession were invalid and unconstitution al, and no force which was brought by those in rebellion to sustain these acts could give them legality. The gentleman has quoted from writers on the law of nations, to show that a war between 2 nations annuls and abrogates the treaties which had existed between the belligerents. Sir, these States were not held together by the force of treaties, but by a constitution adopted, and assented to, by each of them, and by their people through their conventions. It is however true, that when a civilWar breaks out between different members of the same Government, the contending parties are each entitled while the war continues to the rights and usages of war, as against each other. T is, sir, is a rule of necessity, and is dictated by the soundest principles of humanity and Chris tian civilization. The doctrine is thus laid down by Mr. Wheaten in his learned work on international Law, page 520: “A civilWar betweendifferentmembersof thesame society is what Qro iuscalls amixed war it Is according to him public n the side of the establishedGovgminent, and private on the part of the peopleresisting its authority. But th general usageof nations regards such a war as entitling both the contending parties to all the rights of war as against each other and evenasrespectsneutral nations.” But I deny that there is anything in this sound and necessary principle of public law which implies in a Case like ours, that the late insureent States were outside of the Union, or constituted a distinct or foreign nation. In all our cartels for the exchange of prisoners, we were governed by the principles laid down in Wheaton. But the gentleman would have us to believe that it was just as absurd to say that the States could not go out of the Union, because the constitution forbids it, as it would be to say, in a case of deliberate murder, that no murder was committed, because the law forbids that crime. Sir, I most respectfully submit that the cases are not at all similar; and the illustration does not in the least aid the gentlemans argument. In the case of murder which he puts, the crime was actually committed, and the murder had taken place. If it had been a mere assault with intent to commit murder, and the person assaulted was not killed, it would not have constituted the crime of murder. So in relation to these States. It was on their part an attempt to withdraw from the Union, which was resisted and prevented; and the act of scenesion Was not, and could not, be consummated, except by the success of the rebellion, but that having been defeated, the secession of these States was thus prevented from becoming a consummated act. But when the gentleman further argues that we have conquered the people of the late in surgent States, and have the right by the law of nations to impose upon them such conditions as may be imsed by the conqueror on a subjugated people, he orgets the real character of the late struggle. It was not a war with a foreign nation. It was a struggle to reserve the just power and jurisdiction of the U.S and maintain the Union. Our jurisdiction had been ousted over a portion of the Republic by an armed and organized force; and we exerted force to remove this resistance, and reassert our rightful iurisdiction, which had thus been invaded. lehave successfully overcome that resistance, and can now enforce the laws of the U.S. in every portion of the Union. We have not by the war gained a particle more jurisdiction or power than we enjoyed and exercised before She war commenced. We have merely vindicated the right to exercise that jurisdiction and authority which wc asscrted hfifore secession was attempted. It is not at to a war with a foreign Power, in which we have conquered territorv from the eneinvi In such a case we would have obtained power and jurisdiction over a territory and its inhabitants, which we did not have at the commencement of the war; but in our late struggle we have acquired no new power or jurisdiction, but simply have regained firmly the power and jurisdiction of which the insur gents sought by the rebellion to deprive us. While the war lasted, it became necessary, in the true interests of humanity, that it should be conducted according to the rules of enlightened Christian nations; but now that the war has ended, and the people of those States have submitted to the rightful jurisdiction of the U.S., and returned to their duty, the rules of war no longer are to be invoked; but we are to look to the more appropriate and peaceful remedies, for all that remains yet to be done, to the constitution of the U.S. Sir, we do not hold these States as conquered territories, because they have always NH)", and continue still to be, States within the Union. While I mustadmire the boldness and consistency of the Gentfrom Pennsylvania in adhering to his cherished doctrine, that those States were out of the Union, yet I would fail in my duty to myself and my constituents. if I did not denounce it, as most dangerous to the prosperity and harmony of this Union. After the war commenced, and after the several States had passed their ordinances of secession, repeated acts of Congress were passed based on the principle that all the States were in the Union. Allow me to refer to the act approved March 4, 1862, fixing the number of members for the HoRep from and after the 3d“ day of March, 1863: Be it enactedbythe Senate and HoRep of the U.S.A.in I Lari wrtm ncmbler. That from and after the 3d day of March, 1863, the number of mombors of the HoRep of the Congressof the U.S. a all be 241 and the 8, additional members shall be assigned one each to Pennsylvania, Ohio, Kentucky, Illinois. Iowa, Minnesota, Vermont, and RhdIsland.” Let me inquire how this number of 241 is made up? We have not 241 members in this House. Sir, it was by allowing Virginia 8, Tennessee 8, Georgia 7, NCarolina 7, SCarolina 4,Arkansas 3, Louisiana 5, Mississippi 5, Alabama 6, Florida one, and Texas four. This act was passed while the rebellion existed, and is the law of the land today. Was this law constitutional, and did these 11 States, on the 4th day of March, 1862, compose a part of the Union? other States are today represented on this floor under the provisions of this act of the 37th Congress. But again, section 3, article 4,of the Constitution of the U.S., provides t. at “lffdncyv State shall be formed orderected within the Junsdiction of any other State; nor any State be formedby the junction oftwo or more States, or parts of States. Without the consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned, as well as of the Congress.” Let me ask how, under this provision of the constitution, the act admitting WestVirginia was passed 1 If by the act of secession the State of Virginia ceased to. be a State within the Union, how could the consent of the Legislature of that State be obtained for the creation of WestVirginia? t But we find by the act admittingJ WestVirginia that it is recited in its pream le, that “The Legislature of Virginia by an act passedon the 13thof May, 1862d, did give its consentto the formation of a newStatewithin the jurisdiction of said State of Virginia.” There was, then, at that time, such a State as Virginia reco find, and if I am not mistaken the distinguished Gentfrom Pennsylvania voted for the act admitting WestVirginia. I do not say that Virginia did give her consent to the formation ofla new State within her boundary. I only refer to these transactions of thefpast to show that these States after the acts o secession were passed, and durin" the continuance of the war, were regarded as within the Union. But it is unnecessary to cite further inl stances of legislation to prove the position of the honorable gentleman to be wholly unten I able. There is, however, one instance in our his torytplnin to the American people, and recognize by the whole civilized world, which seems to me to settlethe status of these States beyond controversy, and that is, sir, the fact that AndrewJohnson, a citizen of Tennessee, is the POTUS, and is so recognized by every Dept of the State and Federal Governments, and by the nations of the world. Sir, if the doctrine maintained and advocated by the distinguished Gentfrom Pennsylvania be sound, then there is no such State as Tennessee within this Union, and AndrewJohnson is not constitutionally POTUS Are gentlemen on the other side willing to sanction doctrines which lead to this result? The constitution provides, article 2, se“ction one, that No person except a naturalborn citizen, or a citizen of the U.S. at the time ot the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person beeligible tothut of llcowho shall not have attained the age of 30 Iive cars and been 14 yoursa resident within the niled States.” At the time of the election of AndrewJohnson as VEEP, 110was a citizen of the State offennessee, but if the State of Tennessee was not a State within this Union, as the learned gentleman insists, then AndrewJohnson was not a citizen of the U.S., and not eligible to the office which he holds. But what follows if the doctrine contended for by the honorable gentleman is erroneous? Why, that the Union has never been dissolved; that the attempt to break it up has failed; that the sacrifices of our brave and heroic Army have reserved to us this glorious herita c of our liithers; that not a Single star has cen blotted out, and that the flag which floats over this Capitol of the people of all the States, with every star still blazoned on its ample folds, still continues to be the true emblem of the union all of the States. Sir, more than this; if these States arejn the Union, if they have never been out ofit, us I contend, then, sir, they are in the Union as equal States, with all the rights and privileges which belong to States in this Union, and are entitled to be represented on this floor by the same authority as the States of Pennsylvania and Ohio. Sir, there was much in the able speech of the Gentfrom Pennsylvania which seemed to me not equal to the dignity of the great question which he discusse. His allusion to “copperheads, ” and the imputation of purposes of bad faith in regard to the public deht, could lend no weight to his argument, and were only calculated to arouse feelings of bitterness and recrimination, which are not calculated to aid in the elucidation of great constitutional questions, or to develop wise and healthy legislation. The allusion of the distinguished gentleman to the late Chief Justice, filled me with pain and surprise. No urer fitme or more upright and honest jurist a orns e long list of the great men of America, of whom we are so justly proud. With a character nnsullied, and a conscientious devotion to duty, he discharged eve trust with the strictest fidelity. His eminent cumin and services will be remembered and cheris edby the good and virtuous as long as our histo and American jurisprudence shall be studie. I am, 81!“i, n favor of the admission of members from the States now unrepresented on this floor. The people of these States, it seems to me have acquiesced with great unanimity and with sincerity in the condition of things which the warhas brought upon them. They have aban doned slavery and surrendered it up as one of the things of the ast never, never again to be roe stablished. they have abandoned the claim to any right, or pretense of an right of secession, and with entire unanimity acliine wledged the supreme jurisdiction of the General Government in all matters which have been vested in it. by the constitution of the U.S. They have resolved for the future to be true citizens of the Union and now what should be the conduct of this Government toward these people? Shall a state of discord and acrimonious eeling, almost as intense as that which existed during the war, he continued? Is it by such means as these that fraternal relations are to be restored between the sections? No, no, let all those evil feelings give way before the peaceful smiles of a once mere united and patriotic people. Let us as far as possible forget the past, and Generously welcome the return of our southern brethren. Let no mean partisan or sectional feelings or jcalousies longer keep us asunder. Let it indeed be a union of hearts as well as of hands., Representing as I do as intelligent, loyal, and patriotic aconstitucncy as any within the Union, Ifcel it not only a duty, but a pleasurc, to give my feeble aid in binding up the wounds of the country, and to make use of every legitimate means of once more cementing the bonds of a Union, which I trust may be perpetual. Sir, the surest means of preserving our cherished Union is in the exercise of mutual charity and forbearance; in a faithful observance of the just rights of the people of the several States, and a considerate regard for the feelings, hab its views, und, it may be, the prejudiees of the different sections, so far as the some do not violate the constitution of the U.S. Sir, slavery is out of the way; my let us not narrel about what policy the States may see fit to adopt. in regard to the question of sutfznge. I have never been the friend or advocate of slavery. I have always regarded it as an evil, but an evil which, in my Opinion, the States alone could remove;, but it has ceased to exist, and certainly no man who could in the least influence the public mind will be found wild enough to advocate its ree stablishment. The discussion of the question of slavery which has for so many years disturbed the deliberations of the American Congress, and which has been the parent of so much excitement and sectional bitterness, should no longer disturb our delib crations. Sir, no one will be more gratified than myself to witness on advancement in the conduct, intelligence, and virtue of the emancipated race equal to the most sanguine anticipations of those who have so long demanded their freedom. Whether the colored race, by their industry, morality, and good conduct, shall show themselves worthy to be admitted to the exercise and enjoyment of more political privileges than they now enjoy, is a (nestion which must be left to the exclusive u gment of the States in which they reside. P or in self, as a Representative from the State of bio, I disclaim any right. whatever to interfere in these questions in any of the States; and as a citizen of that State, I am free to say, while I have no ill feeling toward the negro, I shall ever oppose profferring upon him the right of suffrage in 10. But, sir, I repeat it, these are questions which must be left to the exclusive determinatioh of the several States; and the attempt to deprive certain States from being represented on this floor because the negro is not allowed to vote within such States is a bold conspiracy to subvert one of the plainest rights which belong to the States. If you do not intend that these States shall be represented in this Congress, ray, sir, tell me in what Congress they are to e represented? What do you repose to do with them in the mean time? fire the to be held as Poland is held by Russia, as an ry is held by Austria, or as Ireland is belt?a by GreatBritain? Are the principles of the old constitution to be abandoned, and the whole character of oursystern of governmentchanged, in order that the white men of 11 States me, be disfranchised, and the no o clothed with political rights? Is it possible, sir, that within the limits of our Republic white men will combine to degrade their own race and kindred in order to confer political power into the hands of black men? 1865. 119 Sir, I deny the right of this Congress, or of the Federal Government, either directly or in directly, to regulate the right of the elective franchise within the severe States. No such power has been conferred upon it. We must, if we expect to continue our free system of Government, agree, like frank and candid men, that there is no difference in the rights of the several States of this Union; that each State is the equal of the other, and has the same rights and privile; and if you can interfere by the General vernment, to regulate the question of the elective franchise in NCarolina, you may by the same power regulate the same question in Massachusetts and Ohio. The Federal Government cannot dictate to the States in this matter of suffrage. The constitution of the U.S., 2nd section of article 1, declares that “Tho HoRep shall be composed of memberschosen every 2nd year by the people of the several States and the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electorsof the most numerous branohof thoState Legislatures.” The qualifications of electors of members of the Legislatures of the States have been fixed and regulated from the earliest period of the adoption of government by the American people, h each State for itself, and the section alrea y quoted expressly recognizes this right as belonging exclusively to the States. Sir, the claim to regulate the elective franchise in the States unrepresented on this floor cannot be sustained upon any other theory than that advocated by the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, namely, that these States, whose people were lately in revolt, were actually out of the Union; that the Union was broken up and dismembered, and that we have conquered these States, and reduced them to Territories. But again, we have been told that the people of those States must remain unrepresented until they exhibit signs of true loyalty. How long; 5, ten, or 30 years? Charles Sumner tells us that time is necessary. He says in his speech of September 14, 1865, before the Republican State convention of Massachusetts, that “ For 30 years and more this wickednesswasma turing. Who oan say that the same time will not be u cedednow to mature conditions of permanentpeace7 Who can say that uqeporation mustnot ola sobefore these rebel communities have beenso for o nngedas to becomes afe associatesin aoommon Government!" and again, in the same speech, he says: “As thosewho have fought against us should be disfranchised. so those who foug t for us should be onfranchised. "For a while the freedmanwill take the place of the master, thusvarif iplilr It)hoslatyingthattho last shall be 1st and the 1st s o as. Another distinguished citizen of the same State,GenlButler, has told us in a speech which he has made somewhere in Massachusetts, that we have full power in our own hands, and that we can refuse to let a State be represented until the State shall permit the colored man to vote and this seems to be the scheme of the radicals, who are seeking to defeat the policy of a patriotic Executive to heal u the wounds oft o country, and bring all the totes together again in this House of the peoples Representatives. I trust that conservative Gentlemen on the other side will notbe overawed by the Senfrom Massachusetts and the distinished Gentfrom Pennsylvania. ir, the southern people have erred deeply and terribly, but have they not also most griev ously suffered? No brave or gallant man would at a time like this cry out for more punishment upon this peolc. A magnanimous people and a great an magnanimous Government will not allow it. Now, that the war has ended, every honest effort should be made by all true citizens to restore friendly relations between the different sections, and cement more firmly than ever the bonds of the Union. All further effort to punish this people by the forfeiture of their political rights should end, except in so far as the public interests may imperatively demand punishment; and then let it be in accordance with the constitution and laws of the land. Lf indeed we have peace, let it be a peace in reality. Let our conduct be such as will be approved by that calm, deliberate, and thought in England, and clearly laid down by many of ful public opinion of the Christian and civil, her eminent law writers.ized world, which will most assuredly pass its judgment on the conduct of our Government. Sir, I am glad to be able to say here tdday that in the main I approve the course and policy of the President on this question; and shall feel it my duty to give him my support in every properand constitutional effort to restore to these States their just rights, and to heal up the wounds which have been inflicted upon the country. It is indeed a high and noble mission in which the Executive is engaged, and I regret to find he has not the cordial support of the distinguished Gentfrom Pennsyvania, and those who concur in the views of that gentleman as announced on last Monday. l ow that the war is over, since we have vindicated before the world the ability of this Government to maintain itself and to preserve the Union, it seems to me that it is the duty of every public man to study, without partisan bitterness, the remedies best adapted to restore quiet and confidence to the country, and to show to the world, that while this Government is determined to maintain the integrity of the Union, cost what it may, and to crush with a strong hand all o position to its rightful authority, so, too, in the our of triumph, when the opposition to the Government has surrendered, and given evidence of its return to obedience, that we know how to practice that generous clemenc and kindness which cannot fail to win line the affections of these people, many of whom have been misguided and deceived; and thus exhibit to the world that our people are as much distinguished for their magnanimity and forbearance as for their gallantry and courage. Sir, there is great wisdom in the noble language of Edmund Burke, when he exclaimed, that me animity in polities is the truest wisdom, an a great empire and little minds go ill to ether. ut, sir, the great mass of the southern people have been included in the amnesty proclamation of the President, and many who were not so included have since, by the action of the Executive, received special pardons. By what law or principle are you to derive these men, after they have taken the oat to support the constitution of the U.S., from the exercise of the right of suffrage, and the great constitutional right of being represented on this floor? Sir, ou cannot rightfully thus inflict penalties an forfeitures upon them. But I insist that by the wellsettled principle of public law the great masses of the people of these southern States, who did not engage in organizin the rebellion, and only were carried along with it, after it was organized, because they could not resist it, are not guilty of treason. It is a wellsettled principle of public law that protection and allegiance are reciprocal duties; and that Government which claims allegiance, must afford protection. The majority of the epic of the South were opposedto secession. Gen the direct issue made in Virginia in 1861, there was an overwhelming majority against it, and a fair vote in the other States would have exhibited clear majorities against secession. unless we should exccpt SCarolina. An I ask would it not be monstrous for this Government which failed to protect the great masses of the people of the southern States from the usuation of those who conspired to break n the Union, now to punish this same people with the most severe and grave penalties, namely, the forfeiture of high political rights, because they submitted to the usurped power which they were unable to resist? Sir, the greatprinciple of justice, as applied by the common sanction of the civilized world is, that principle already named, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal duties, and the Government which has failed to protect any portion of its citizens from the usurpation of any other power, foreign or internal, cannot, when such power has been overthrown, punish the unfortunate people who for the time being were subjected to such usurped power for yielding it obedience. This doctrine is well settled and has also been solemnly recognized and applied by the SCOTUS in the case of the U.S. vs. Rice, in 4 Whcatons reports, page 246. Why longer dela the admission of the rercsentatives from t cse States? Will it may e their people better citizens, and inspire them with more love and devotion to the Government? Every man who understands human na ture must know that such a course is only calcu lated to harass and annoy this people, and divert the public mind from the consideration of other questions of greatinterest to the country. Why refer this question to aJtCommee of the Senate and House, when the constitution provides that each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its own members? Why this attempt to stifle all debate on a question of so much importance to the States and to the entire Union? I know gentlemen dislike to give uppower, and are alarmed at the idea that power may indeed uiss from their hands. They may indeed for a while annoy and interfere with the president in his patriotic efforts to unite and har monize the whole country, North and South; but gentlemen are mistaken if they believe they can defeat the purposes of the Executive. Sir, the people will canvass this great question, and Will inquire why it is that 11 States of this Union are unrepresented here; and sooner or later public opinion, which will swcc everything before it, will demand that those States shall be rercsented. The people, sir will sustain the resident in o"91y01108t an patriotic effort to discharge the grave and responsible duties which have devolved upon him; and gentlemencannotlon evade the issuc which has licen so frankly and distinctly made by the honorable Gentfrom Pennsylvania with the policy of the Chief Executive. But, sir, much of this attempt to disfranchise the white men of 11 States unless they consent to give the ballot to the negro, (and I say it without intendin the least disrespect to the able and distinguislied delcation from that scetion) comes from NewEngland, and finds a zealous and able advocate in the Gentfrom Pennsylvania. NewEngland fears that, unless her policy is adopted, her power to control this nation will be 0st forever, and knows that if it is sanctioned and adopted by the American people, she may rule this nation for generations to come. u Sir, there is much in the iistory of NewEng nd which I admire; she has produced man great and noble sons; but there is also time in her history which we have to deploremuch in her interineddling, narrow, uneasy, and ag gressive spirit that is at war with the true interests of the American people. She will not be satisfied unless she can rule and control the policy of this Government. If NewEngland, and NewEngland policy, can regulate and control the question of suffrage in those 11 States, she believes that she may be able to control the financial legislation of this country, and kindly fix the amount of our tariffs, and internal taxes, for the next 50 years to come. Sir, it is a bold attempt and well worth all the effort that her Sumners and Phillipses can exert to accomplish; but it will fail, as it should fail, for if it could succeed, the great principles of our system of government would be overthrown. It is an attempt to disfranchise our own race and kindred and transfer their political power into the hands of another race. Can it be possible that the prejudices, passions, and supposed interests of oneportion of the white men of this Union, shall cad them so far as to nttcm t to strip their own race of political rights, in order to confer them upon the negro? Sir, let us endeavor to be equal to the great work before us. Instead of postponing the admission of the members from these States now asking admission, let us generously we come their return to representation in this common sisterhood of States and in place of M tempting to confer on the negro the right of suffrage let us exert ourselves industriously to heal up all past differences, and labor to ascertain how we may best curtail the enormous expenditures of the Government, and reduce the heavy burdens of taxation, which now press upon the people. Let us recur back to those Wise and pure lessons of patriotism and duty taught usby Jefferson in his 1st inaugural when he declared the principles which be deemed essential to the Government: "Equal and exact justice to all men of whatever ateor persuasion meh ionsor political; peace. com[acres and honest friendship with all nations entering alliances with none; the support of t a State governmentsin all their rights as the most competent administrations for our domesticconcerns and the surestbulwarks against antirepublican tendencies: the reservation of the General Government in its whole constitutional vigor is the sheet anchorof our onceat home and safe abroad; llJealous care of e right of election by. the people, a mild and safe corrective of abuseswhich arelotpped by the sword of revolution where peacable reme ice are unprovuled; absolute acquiescencein the decisions of the majority, the vital principleof republics, from whiehthere is no appeal but to area, the vital principlo mediuto parent of despotisni; awell iscaipnldinctdhemimili tia our best reliancein peace and for the firptmoments of war till regulars may re havethem: the supremacy of the civil over the military authority; cconom the public expense: that labor may be lightly ur dened; the honestpayment of our slits: and sacred preservation of the public faith: encouragement of agriculture and of commnercen sits handmaid the diffusion of information and arraignment of all abuses at the barof public reason; fre omofreligion: freedom of the press and freedom of person under the ipmroptaercttiaiollny of the habeaacoma, and trial by Juries selected.” If these wise principles shall guide us, we may look. with confidence for a favorable solution of: all the questions submitted to our deliberations; but, sir, if the radical and revolutionary measures which have been introduced into this House since the opening of this session of Congress shall commend themselves favorably to the majority on this floor, then I believe that evils, serious and lamentable, can only arise out of this overreaching and constant attempt to dictate to, and relate, the domestic affairs of the States. It is incompatible With our whole frame and system of government. I believe this Government can be conducted successfully under our present constitution, With a faithful observance and respect for the Just powers and rights of the States; and so elieving, while I will most cordially and sincerely labor to maintain “the preservation of the General Government in its whole constitutional vigor as the sheetanchor of our peace at home and safety abroad, ” I will also, With the same determination, oppose all attempts at the centralization and consolidation of powers in the Federal Government, which have not been granted to it, and labor to support “ the State governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns, and the surest bulwarks against antirepublican tendencies.”