Mr. STEWART. Mr. President, before the meeting of Congress, various propositions were suggested in the public prints for amendments to t ie Constitution as guarantees for the future security of the country. It was feared that there would be an effort on the part of the late rebellions States to embarrass the Government by attempts to assume, in some form, obliga I a hen ed from that sourcetions incurred in support of the rebellion. I was one among the number who had some fears on this subject, and although most of the southern States had expressly reudiated the rebel debt, still I felt that it won d not be unreasonable to place that repudiation beyond recall, by a national compact, and it seemed to me that no one could complain of such compact byway of amendment to the Constitution, inasmuch as the justice of the proposition was manifest to all, and denied by none, the only objection being that it was a work already accomlisbed, and no danger was to be appreI still think that an amendment of this kind, properly worded, would be readily adopted by all the States, both North and South, and might prevent harm to the country. At all events, it would be aguar autcc of some value to loyal men, and need not retard for a single day the work of reconstruction, for with the present state of feeling the South would be quite as ready to adopt it as the North. It is but a declaration of a conceded proposition perfectly in harmony with the spirit of the Constitution and the verdict of the war. But this is not a proposition under consideration. There was another question growing out of the abolition of slavery which changed the basis of representation in the South from the entire population, less 2/5ths of the slaves, to the whole population without an reduction whatever. The Republic mind was much exercised over this question, and the general verdict of the people, as manifested through the press, was that the basis of representation should be so changed as not to accord to the South increased representation asa reward for rebellion, and it was generally conceded that. that could be accomplishedby adopting male citizens of the U.S. over the age of 21 years, who are allowed to vote in their respective States, as the basis of representation, and the assessed value of property, both real and personal, as the basis of taxation. Both of these propositions are embodied in the resolution which shallot. the propertime other as a substitute for that reporteld by the committee, and which I will re: Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States which, may be included within this Union according to the number of male citizens of the U.S. in each State over 21 yearsof age (Lunlified by the laws thereof to c ioose membersof the most numerous branch of its Legislature and direct taxcs shall be levied in cach State according to the value of real and personal property situated therein not belonging to the State nor tett a U.S. These propositions appeared for a time to meet with universal favor for they appeared to be founded in justice and equality. It based the political power of the country upon the number of voters, iving each an equal voice; giving a voter in Ca ifornia the same representation here as one in Mississippi; making an elector in Ohio equal to one in Kentucky. It said to the South, “ If your negroes, women, and children do not vote they shall not be counted; not because they are negross, women, and children, but because they are not voters.” It said to the North, “If you do not allow your aliens and women and children to vote they shall not be counted not because they are aliens, women, and children, but because they are not voters.” It left the control of the elective franchise where the Constitution of the fathers had placed it, within the jurisdiction of the several States, only limiting their representationin Congress to such male citizens over the age of 21 years in the several States as the States themselves wouldtrustwith the ballot. This, it was thonght, would be a “(went inducement to all the States to exten no right of suffrage to all who could safely exercise that right. t would not.only secure to the negro a fair prospect of being enfranchised when his advancementin civilization shall have entitled him to that high rerogative, but would also allow that privilege to be conferred upon him gradually, as it has been done in some of the States of NewEngland, where he now enjoys many of the privileges as well as all the rights of citizenship, and so fast ashe is enfranchised in any State he is counted in the basis of its representation. This is the most favorable position for the negro to occupy, for it avoids the necessary conict that must arise in forcing the emancipated slave, all unprepared for the conflict, upon a political equality with his late master a position which the Senfrom Maine himself has told us no one will contend is desirable. This resolution accomplishes another object quite as important in my estimation as the question of representation itself, and that is, it holds out an inducement to the South to allow the northern emi rantto vote, and makes the proposition recentIy brought forward in the Virginia Legislature to require 5 years residence before a Union soldier from the North can vote inthe Old Dominion quite as detrimental to Virginia herself as to the American citizen to whom she denies the elective franchise. Here let me say that the idea suggested in the proposition to require 5 years residence to qualify an American citizen to vote in Virginia, is the most unfriendly and disloyal manifestation since the fall of the rebellion, and its malice is only surpassed by its folly. Would not the fact that voters only are counted in the basis of Representation, operating with other things, induce the South to abandon such madness? I now propose to examine some of the objections to this proposition, and why it was laid aside.Itis said by the Senfrom Maiuethat we are accustomed to the idea that representation should be based upon population, that it is a part of the enius of our institutions; but let me ask that Senator, if such be the case, why make an exception as in his proposition; why make on change in the Constitution whatever? have we not become accustomed to the whole Constitution as it is, and if such an argument be sound, does it not prove too much? But what was the real reason wh the proposition to make voters the basis of representation was abandoned? It was a Gentfrom NewEngland, I believe, who suggested that it would not operate fairly upon the old States from which the young men who have built up the West have emigrated, leaving a surplus of females, and a comparison was instituted between Vermont and California, and upon this partial view, without any examination into the general effect of the amendment, the whole plan was abandoned and asstem of indirection adopted which I shall iereafter discuss more at length. Were the fears of NewEng land well grounded I Is it a fact that her nonvoting population bears a greater proportion to the whole population than that of the great States of the northwest? An examination of the census of 1860 shows the reverse to be true. For while the East has a greater proportion of females, the West has a greater proportion of mine rs, and strange as it may seem, that while the white males over twcnty years of age in the States of Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Iowa, llli nois, and Wisconsin constitute only 1/3rd of the whole opnlation, or 11 in 33,in the NewEngland States the ratio of white males over 20 to the balance of the population is as 11 to 29 L I do not pretend that my figures are exactly correct, as I was compelled to omit fractions, but are sufficiently so for the purposes of this argument. Tested by another in e, taking Mr. Coxsuxos table, prepared with great care, we find that representationbased on white suffrage would. ive an increase of 9 Representatives in the States east of the Alleghany mountains, namely, one to Connecticut, 2 to Massachusetts, one to Maine, one to NewJersey, and 4 to NewYork, while the States west of the Alleghanics would gain only 5. This, however, might be somewhat modified on account of the foreign males over 20 which we have no means by the census of separating from the aggrevate of white males over that age. But the changes occasioned by this element would certainly not be rejsdicial to the East, the preponderance of orei ners being in the West, and the population of california, which has been held up as an example of the extreme injustice and me quality of this proposition, is nearly % foreign. the basis and not white males over 20, by which we now only approximate the result, Vermont will not cry out against the unjust representation of California. Suppose California should be largely represented for a few years until poulation should regulate itself; suppose she should have one or 2 Representatives more than Vermont, with 175,000 voters to 87,000 in Vermont; with a territory eater than all NewEngland and the mi dle States combined; with $50,000,000 a year exports, while Vermont has only $860,000; with $216,000,000 worth of property, whileVerniont has ouly $l79,000,000 with $1.200.000 worth of manufactures and productions, while those of Vermont are valued at only $437,000; and finally, paying into the national Treasury on account of internalrevenue nearly 4 million dollars, while Vermont pays less than 800,000, and with the 3rd port of entry in the U.S. If. sir, I repeat, she should have one or 2 more Representatives than Vermont, would a great wrong he committed? I take Vermont and California, for between these the comparison is usually instituted. Take the proposition of the committee, and California has 2 Representatives and Vermont 3, for California will never allow her Chinese population to vote, and they must be exclude from the basis or representation. You say they are not citizens. Why have they not become so? because they know very well that they will not be allowed to vote in any event; and consequently California is not much troubled with their applications for citizenship. But let it be known that Caliibrnia cannot afford to exclude them from the right of suffrage, and the question will be at once forced upon her to decide whether she will allow Chinese to vote or lose her just representation in the Halls of congress. he same question will be presented to Nevada and the other Pacific States in the next 5 years, and the Chinaman will become the negro of the Pacific. But it may besaid by some, let him vote. I can only say to them, you do not know the Chinaman. They will reply that this is the argument of the Soutli,that Senators from the North do not know the negro. But is there no force in the argument even as to the negro, who is an American, generally a believer in the Christian religion 2 and with how much more force can this argument be used with regard to the pagan Asiatic, speaking an unknown tongue, and being a stranger, and ever remaining an nlien and a stranger, to our language an our institutions. The following is the proposition of the committee: Anrictn.Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union nce ordingtotbeir respectivenumbers, counting the whole number of personsin each State. excluding Indians not tiixed: ProDflllll, That whenever toe elective franchise shall be denied or abridgediii any State on account of racoor color.all personsthereine fsuchraceor color shallbeexcluded from the basisof representation. What are the arguments in favor of this strange. prdposition. The only one that I have yet heard is, that it will force the South to universal suffrage or deprive her of an acknowledged right; for the proposition asserts, that population is the just basis of representation, but that the late slave States shall be excluded from that basis until they will extend suffrage to the blacks. But it may be said that this provision applies only to the blacks of the North with those of the South. This is a mere subterfuge, for every one knows, so far as the practical question is concerned, that there are no negroes in the North, or nota sufficient number, to make any material difference whether they are included or excluded.:he non-voting population of the North consists of aliens, women, and mine rs. The nonvoting population of the South consists of negroes, women, and mine rs. The North will exclude on account of alienage, sex, and a e, and avoid the operation of the proviso; while the South and the Pacific coast must either When actual voters are made i v I confer universal suffrage on negroes and Chii nanien, or lose their just representation. This will ever be a source of discontent, and it will be hard to explain to fair minded men why an alien, and even an alien enemy, should be Represented in the North and a free negro unrepresented in the South. But it is said that the South can avoid this inequality and injustice by enfranchising all the negroes for mark, they must all be enfranchised or none are counted a measure which the chairman of the committee who reported this resolution tells us is not desirable or proper. But how will this proposition be received by. the people of the 19 original free States which eny suffrage to the few comparatively intelligent negroes within their jurisdiction? When you tell them that you propose to punish the South for not extending universal suffrage to her emancipated slaves, can they with any propriety inflict this punishment hya constitutional amendment when they are guilty of the same offense with far less revocation? What will 15 orinal slave L States, who are to be punished by this proposition, say when on tell them that on deprive them of their Just representation because they refuse to do what every fair man must admit they cannot and on ht not to do to enfranchise the late slaves wil. out the slightest preparation for the exercise of that important privilege? 1f I were compelled to choose between the proposition of the committee and the resolution offered by the Senfrom Missourito confer universal suffrage at once, I should accept the latter, because it is bold and affirmative, and has every reason in its favor that can be offered in support of the resolution of the committee without the conclusive argument of indirection to disgrace it in the eyes of bold, honest men. Show me where or when the American people ever indorsed an indirect or equivocal proposition. The politician may waver and shrink from responsibility, but the people are honest and fearless, and whenever they are prepared to amend the Constitution, theywdl amend it in plain and direct terms for plain and direct reasons, and if it be true that no amendment to avoid this evil which is supposed to exist can be adopted in plain terms with the consent of the American people, it is some evidence that no great necessity exists, and is quite conclusive evidence that no amendment can be carried, for Congress cannot cheat the American people. I do believe that if we had not become wise above our do and generation, but had adopted the plain anjsiinple proposition of voters as a basis of representation, that we could have been successful. But the proposition under consideration is heartily approved by none, and must fail sooner or later. It is illogical on its face, and contains within itself its own best refutation and condemnation. “Better endure the ills we have, ” than to fall into this labyrinth of confusion worse confounded. Suppose you passthis resolution, and itshonld become a part of the Constitution, what.may be the consequences? You have departed from the original compromises of the Constitution; you have deprived the South of just representation for not doing a thing which you confess she oughtnot to do you have established the rece ent that whole sections maybe punishe by constitutional amendments; you have commenced a crusade upon the compromises of the Constitution, aban oning principle, and confessing that your justification rests upon expe diency alone. Where shall this crusadepend? May not the time come wh he giant States of the Mississippi valley, now ree from the Gulf to the Lakes, soon to teem with 100 million inhabitants, shall inquire by what warrant. of authority NewEngland holds 12 places in this Senate Chamber? Will NewEngland then reply, by equality of right, or, by the compromises of the Constitution? Ifby the former, may not these mighty States demand a count, an if by the latter, may not this reposition be brought up in judgment against her as having repudiated those compromises? May not Kentucky some day say to RhdIsland, was it just foryou, in the day of your power, to de prive me of representation, for revenge? May not Virginia one day complain of Connecticut, and mav she not, by the conperation of NewYork, Pennsylvania. Ohio, and other great States, have the power to make that complaint effectual? Beware how you kick a sleeping lion. The South is now free; the shackles of bondagehave fallen from the limbs of the slave, and idleness must depart from the homes of the whites. Why should not the richest half of the national domain some day become the most populous and powerful? I know today the South looks broken and destroyed, prostrate. misera ble, weak, and poor, but this war has done far more for the South than it has for the North. It. has broken up an institution that was de stroying the white man and impoverishing the country, and has opened the fertile fields of that vast region for freelabor; and if this resolution passes, the sons of NewEngland and the men now residing in the orth will be yhoeuanrg joining their voices with the natives of the South proclaiming against the injustice which we have gone to their adopted country. We can punish men, we can besiege and overrun a country, butan attempt to punish rich land, which is to be inhabited by NewEngland Yankees like ourselves, is, to say the least, a doubtful exercise of power. But this proposition comes from the ComReconstruction, and for that reason, and that reason alone, we are to presume than has something to do with that subject. How or in. what way it will harmonize existin difficulties or give any additional security to teNorth, I am unable to comprehend. its manifest injustice will inspire nothing but heart blirnings and discontent, and excite new enmities not only a inst the Government but against the negro, who will be regarded as the cause of a great calamit and a grievance to be removed from the handy, and some mode will be devised where by to evade the law by placing the distinction on some other ground besides race or color. Is the question of representation so important after all as has been supposed? It is said that the 2/5ths of the slaves who were not counted will give the original 15 slave States 18 more Representatives. But this calctfiation is based upon the hypothesis that the loss and mortality in the North have been equal in proortion to that in the South and that there has can no greater proportional increase in the North than in the outh during the past 5 years. The fact is, there can be no new apportionment of Representatives until the new census is taken; and does anyone doubt that the loss of the South in actual deaths and emigration, added to the failure of increase, will more than equal the twoiifths of the slaves that will be added to the basis of representation by their emancipation? Be side all this, the progress of the North has not been materially retarded by the war. By the census of 1860 the 15 slave States, rejecting the 2/5ths of the slave population, had 85 Representatives in Congress, and the 19 free States 156. It is safe to say that a census todav, based upon the Constitution as it now is, would not increase the representation of the original slave States, but it is quite certain that it would decrease it., But there is anodier fact which is very important in this connection. We have ained over to freedom some of those original s have States. Missouritoday with 9 Representatives, is quite as radical as Massachusetts; and Maryland is only one step behind Missouri, so that we may take 14 from the 85 and add it to the 156; and we hope to be able before long to add to this list Union men from Tennessee, and other southern States; and we intend to exclude from both Halls of Congress all but loyal men. Can we not in this way, with our present majority, keep the rebels from taking charge of this Government, at least for the present session 1 Em" Mmwwuss cross. neg of Congress, and for the next, and until we either depart from principle or disobey the will of our constituents and are hurled from raver? Q There is no danger of rebels obtaining the “(tendency unless we ourselves take positions which cannot be sustained before the country. But although I do not regard the danger of no amendment equal to the danger of adopting the illogical proposition of the committee, still I think my substitute, making voters the basis, better than no amendment, and if the idea had not been abandoned without investigation it would have passed both Houses and one to the country long before this. It is the only true principle, ita change is to be made, upon which representation can be based. We must either ta e population or votes. If we take population, no amendment is necessary. A coercive proviso in favor of the negro will be a coercive proviso against the proposition. But what objection is there to the principle of adopting voters as the basis of representation? It is the voters, after all, who are the ultimate source of all political power. They decide all political questions by their votes. Their voice is assumed to be the voice of the people, and why should one elector have a greater voice than another, on account of his Surroundings? Why should the young men of the East, who are surrounded by mothers and sisters anxious for their emigration to the undeveloped West have a greater voice in the councils of the nation than their more enter prising brothers, surrounded by the most prod gal and bounteous gifts of nature, and burning with a laudable desire for such reiresentation and legislation as shall lead to the evelopment of the homes of their adoption? Do not the mighty resources of the West require more representation, more care, more abiity in the opening of new channels of trade and new avenues of wealth than is required in, following the ooves of legislation in which the eastern States have so harine niouslyine ved from the organization of the Government until now?. I3ut the objections on the ground of there being a greater non-voting population in the East than the West have been shown to be without foundation, and the principle that a voter in the North is equal to a voter in the South, I am willing to advocate anywhere as an independent, abstract proposition independent of negro suffrage or any other suffrage; but I am not willing to maintain a reposition which assumes that population is die onlyjust basis, and then denies its universal application to coerce negro suffrage, or to accomplish any other object. I must be permitted to digress for a moment to examine the position of the Senfrom Massachusetts; or it so happens that we agree in our oppositiontothis resolution. He opposes it because he contends that the Constitution has already conferred power to extend suffrage to the negro, and for other reasons. I oppose it because I believe it is unjust, and for other reasons. But I do not wish to be understood as agreeing with him in his principal reason of opposition; for if there is anything clear to my mind, it is that the question of suffrage is exclusively within State jurisdiction under the Constitution as it now stands. It is contended that the provision in the Constitution that the U.S shall guaranty to every State in this Union a RFG denies to the State the power to exclude the negroJrom the elective franchise. A strange construction, indeed! When this Constitution was made, a majority of the States were not only excluding the negro from voting, but absolutely treating him as achattel, and continued so to do during all the brightest days of the Republic. I fancy that it would have taken something more than the eloquence of the Senfrom Massachusetts to have convinced the Convention which framed the Constitution of the U.S. that a majority of its members, and a majority of the States there represented for the purpose of forming a more perLqt Union, were not republican in form, but that it was reserved for a son of Massachusetts to ascertain that the framers of the Constitution intended and made5 it the duty of the U.S. to guaranty to Virginia and the other slave States a different form of government from that which then existed, an which continued to exist until a wicked conspiracy sought to destroy the Union of the States and the free government of the fathers. But the honorable Senator inquires, wherein does the Constitution guaranty to the States the right to regulate the elective franchise? A new doctrine l Where, I ask, in that instrument have the States conferred that power upon the U.S.? The power existed in the States before the formation of the Constitution; and the Constitution provides in express terms that “ The powersnot delegatedto the U.S. by the Constitution. nor prohibited by it to the States,:il g rycservetdo the States respectively, or to the people But in this case we have something more than the mere fact that the power to regulate the question of suffrage was not conferred by the States upon the U.S., and was therefore reserved; for we have the express recognition and acknowledgment of the right of the States to determine the qualification of electors or voters in the 2nd section of the 1st article of the Constitution, wherein it is provided that the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors (or voters) of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature. These plain provisions of the Constitution have been sanctioned by uniform practice for over 3 uarters of a century, and vindicated, sustained, and expounded by every patriot and statesman of the present and former generations until now, and clearly and strongly maintained by the great constitutional expounder, and the predecessor of the Senfrom Massachusetts through a long life of service and usefulness, but never in more marked or unmis takable language than in the following passage in his reply to sync: “To avoid all possibility of being misunderstood, allow meto repeat again in the fullest manner. that I claim no powersfor the Government by forced or unfair construction. I admit that it is a Government of strictly limited powers;of enumerated.specified, and particularized powers, and that whatsoeverisnot granted is withhel." But in this case so far from the power to regulate suffrage being granted to the General Government, language is used fully recognizin the existence of that power in the States, an I fear the honorable Senfrom Massachusetts will be compelled to reason a little more closely or fail to acquire the reputation of his great predecessor as the expounder of the constitution of the U.S. But to return to the question of reconstruction. What has this resolution or any other proposition emanating from the committee to o with that subject? Suppose conrcss should adopt each of these resolutions, “Hi we be an nearer the consummation of the great wor before us than we were bathe day when congress assembled? The committee has not in ornied us what guarantees are to he demanded of the South before it will be safe and proper to allow the late rebel States representation in Congress. If conditions are necessary ought. they not to be named at once, that Congress may approve them and the people of the South adopt them? Congress has been in session now nearly 3 months, and volumes of able and elaborate arguments have been made to show how the South can be kept out of the Union, and that Congress has power to exclude the southern States from a participation in the legislation of the country, but a proposition or plan for bringing them back has not. he plan suggested by the President pwpeeabreeedn. severely criticised but no other has been suggested. The country is perfectly willing that congress shall present a different plan from that of the President, and if a better one can be presented all Union men everywhere, and, I have no doubt, the President himself, would be quite willing to accept it, for it is certain as 0.18Peerlsbvslit Qatar, and will here it ii l litany cost. The history of the last 5 years is conclusive upon this oiut, and if no better plan than that suggested) by the President can e devised and that speedily, the want it on the plan of AndrewJohnson, an will sustain him and his plan against all arguments tending to show how disunion may be successfully accomlished. I or one wanted some other guarantees be sides those contained in an document l have yet seen emanating from the resident. I wanted the repudiation of the confederate debt placed beyond a peradventure; I wanted the basis of representation established upon the voters of the country; but I would not sacrifice the Union for even these, for I do not believe that this country will ever become so degraded and lost to honor and patriotism as to send Sens&Reps to Congress who will ever under any circumstances pay one dollar contracted by rebels for the overthrow of the Government, but aconslitutional amendment would avoid the agitation of such a question, an the other question of representation I have already shown is not so great an evil as a partial examination of the question might indicate. But it is intimated that the President would open the doors of Congress to rebels and trai tors. I deny that there is the slightest foundation for such a charge. On the contrary, while he has on all occasions disclaimed any author or control over the action of either branch Congress as to the admission of members, he has on repeated occasions expressed a de cided opinion that disloyal persons should be excluded from these Halls. In his recent veto m“essage he says: The right ofastate to representationwould in no wise interfere with the discretion of Congresswith regardto the qualifications of members;but I hold it my dutyto recommendtoyou in theintorest of new and in the interests of the Union, the admission of every State to its share of public legislation. when. however insubordinatc, insurgent or rebellious in people may have been.it presentsitself not only in an attitude of loyalty and harmony, but in the personsof Representativeswhoseloyaltycanuot beques eioped under any existing constitutional or excl 05. Again, to the delegation of Virginia, he says 2, “He who comes as a representative. having the quali heationsprescribedby the constitution to fit him to take aseatin cithei of the deliberative bodieswbich constitutethe national Legislature. mustnecessarily amcucno, rding to the intent of the Constitution, be a loynl Willllll to abide by and bodevoted to the Union and the Constitution of the States. He cannot befor the Constitution, he cannot be for the Union. he can polt MIilLOWIBdIO obedienceto all the laws. unlesshe is oyii. I challenge any man to show me. that the President has ever advised the admission of rebels or traitors into Congress and why should he? Has be any cause to love treason or traitors? Did they not 1st assail him with vituperation and abuse when he stood alone in these Halls and renounced party ties and party assocnitions and separated himself from a lhis personal and political friends, and, braving the preiudiccs and arrogant insolence of the slave power, dared to stand5 with the hated “ abolition party " which was regarded by his section as degraation and infamy, and with it defend the Union, defy traitors, and make war upon treason? Why should be, when, after helcft these Halls, he found that traitors had laid waste his beloved State, that ruin and desolation had overtaken his loyal constituents, and himself branded a criminal and outlaw for daring to defend the right? I like that portion of PreSident Johnsons plan which excludes disloyal persons from the Halls of Congress, and shal everinSist upon the faithful observance of that condition, but I do believe that we should discriminate, and that speedily, between the loyal and the disloyal; that we should commence at once to strengthen the hands of those in the South who have been true to the Government during the terrible civilWarthat has passed. they were Situated where it coat something to be Union men. We thought with over 1/3rd of our poulation from the South, and they comprising the boldest political leaders of all the Pacific coast, perfectly familiar with all the machinery of party politips, and so iorled bylarge and constantly arriving reeufor eiiients from Priccrsuiiuy, contest for political supremacy upon the chosen battle field of Nevada, that it was some credit to be a Union man; but if our position was uncomfortable, what shall we say of a Union man in the South where the penalty of even a suspicion ofloyalty was death; where every Union soul was tortured by the concentrated heat of the fires of rebellion; where, for a time, there was no ray of hope and no bow of promise for the faithful, and where to be for the Union was to renounce home, family, and country, and to be exiled and outlawed? Men of the North who obtained Office and honors, personal security and wealth by loyalty should pause before the question the patriotism of AndrewJohnson an the loyalists of Tennessee, who were true to the flag of the Union when youhadno powertosuccorthem, when they were surrounde by the levions of rebellion, driven from their homes, their houses burned over their defenseless families, and those whowere most dear to them either thrown into dungeons or murdered before their eyes. The struggles of this people surpass any other example of history, an all honor is due to their patriotism. They never did succumb to rebellion. They kept the Union fires burning in Tennessee in the darkest night of treason and established and maintained their own civil government with small aid from the U.S. while the war was still raging. The people of the U.S. recognized the Virtues and heroism of the Unionists of Tennessee by elevating from their number AndrewJohnson to the 2nd place in the Government of the U.S. But the Congress of the U.S. have closed the doors of both Houses to a loyal del etion from Tennessee, chosen by those same nionists. why is this done? he country asks why? and if Congress would justify themselves before the country, they must speedily open the doors to Tennessee or assign good and co ent reasons why those doors should remain c used. It is no answer to say the president had no right to organize the State of tennessee. The President did not organize that State. It was organized by the people; and if it were otherwise, it would not be a matter of the slightest practical consequence, as the people have adopted it and Congress can ratify all, if ratification is necessary, by an admission of her delegation or such of them as can walk u to that stand and subscribe to the oath prescribed by Congress and the same process can be adopted with other States as fast as they com.ly with all your tests of loyalt. There must be adistinction made between the loyal and the disloyal in the South, or eve friend of the Government in that region will be destroyed. It will not do to complain of a failure of the President to make this distinction, while congress is guilty of such sweeping injustice. Neither this Congress nor the President will follow the example of Pierce, who called into his Cabinet the arch traitor Jeff. Davis, and his legion of minions and traitors into almost every place of power and trust in the Government, immediately after their overthrow by the Unionists of the South in the memorable contest of 1851. We have not forgotten how Buchanan, through his infamous SecyWar, Floyd, arme the disuniouistsof theSouthandlcftthese same loyalists of Tennessee and other sections to struggle without hope and without aid against armed traitors, under the treasonable plea that there was no power in this Governmentto maintainits own existence by force, untilalmost the entire South were plun ed or driven into the most cruel, bloody, an wicked war that history has recorded. Who does not believe, if the power and patronage of the Government during Pierces Administration had been in the hands of Unionists, and if Buchanan had followed that example and called none but Union ists about him, and armed none but Unionists, and executed the laws as his oath required, but t::it this war could have been averted? and v he does not confidently hope and expect that a Union party can now be built up in the South, "eve; faithful and true, by commencing with those whose loyalty been tested by this war and admitting them to our confidence and thereby establishing a nucleus around which the people of the South can rally? But this i never can be done by declaring a want of confidence in the faithful equally with the unfaithful. We have nothing to fear from the people of the South. Uninfluenced by passion and undeceived by demago es, they will soon learn to love that Union which they had known only as a blessing until justice required that they should be punished for the terrible rebellion into which they were plunged by the most wicked conspiracy that can ever disgrace the history of man. But the resolution under consideration was born in the excitement of passion created h the veto of the Freedmens Bureau bill. t was announced that last week there was a disposition to admit Tennessee, but that all was changed, not. for anything that Tennessee had done, but because the President had exercised his constitutional power to veto a bill, and this resolution passed the House under the “previous question” without argument or a moments time for the voice of reason to be heard. Suppose the President had no right to veto the Jilly was that a reason why congress should do wrong, or act rashly and unwisely? I think candid and fair men will say it was no reason, and if this resolution would not have appeared but for that action of the President, it should now be defeated, for that action furnishes no ground for its adoption. But did the President after all commit such an j offense against his party or his country as to 1 subject him to condemnation? I voted for and supported the FreedmensBureau bill, although conferrin, as it did, vast discretionary power upon the resident. I did this because I was anxious to do all in in power to protect the freedman, and to afford him a chance to live and labor and enjoy the fruits of his labor, but I did this supposing the President could sign it and carry its provismns into effect. This, upon examination, he found he could not do, and I was unwilling to embarrass the situation of the freedmen by placing on the statute book a law which would be a nullity unless it could be executed by the Executive, and it could hardly be supposed that the President could exercise his discretion to carry into effect a law which he himself believed to be unconstitutional and a violation of his oath of office. Believingthat the President had acted honestly, and nowing that the objections which he urged were of have consideration, and had been so regnrde by the friends of the bill, I felt called upon to sustain the veto, believing that more could be done for the freedmen by conperatin with the President who had already done so we 1 and so much for them than by the passage of a bill to which he was so much opposed. I think even now, iu view of the construction of the former law by the President, as indicated by the letter of GenlHoward, that the real friends of the freedman will say I was right. But, independent of the merits of the Freedmens Bureau bill, I was alarmed for my country at the excitement which prevailed, and particularly from the haste with which this resolution was being pressed in the other House, and felt that neither the Union party nor the count could afford to allow a ill, of whatever c aracter, to be passed over the veto of the President under such extraordinary circumstances. I thought it was time to stop and reflect before we took such action as might forever separate the President and Congress. I felt that the country called upon us, both President and Congress, to harmonize in the great work before us, not only in protectin the freedmen but in restoring the Lnon of these States. Iie had proven to the world his desire to protect the freedmen by the thorough organization of a bureau under the charge of one of the most able and trusted officers of the U.S.; and while he was earnestly engaged in the good work I was unwillingto embarrass him by the pussa e of what he regarded as an, unconstitutional Iaw. I believed that he was honestly and fhithfully carrying out the principles of the Union party which nominated and elected him, and that his codperntion with the Union men was absolutely necessary to a restoration of the Union; and I was unwilling to weaken his influence or alienate him from the Union majority in Congress by passing a bill over his veto in a moment of excitement or passion. Has AndrewJohnson violated any of his obligations to the Union party? I have the Baltimore platform upon which he was nominated, and I ask the Clerk to read it.