Mr. SPALDING. I do not profess to believe that this measure can be brought about in 2 years. I did not claim that. I only claimed that an officer of the Government, who I believe is endeavoring faithfully to discharge his duty as the principal financier of this government, onot be subjected to the tar bucket and the brush whenever he recommends policy to this House. That is all, sir. do believe, barring his political opinions in respect to this work of recenstruction, that the present head of the Treasury Dept in connection with Alexander Hamilton an Salmon P. Chase, will be read in history as the great financial officers of America. Now, I say this boldly:I was ready to say that he was the proper man for the place when Mr. Lincoln appointed him to it. I believed then that Mr. Lincoln was appointing a capable business man, not a politician, to a business situation, and my experience with his administration of the revenue since that time has served to confirm my judgment in this particular. Now, sir, I do not agree with him in his proposition for reconstruction. I do not agree with the SecyNavy where he alludes to the same subject in his report. I do not agree with any of them, the President or any of his Cabinet; I have said so most distinctly. But setting those political opinions aside, I say those dept officers are discharging their duty with high integrity; and, instead of being censured in the HoRep, they ought to be commended. Mr. Speaker, I have occupied much more time than I expected to do when I took the floor this morning. My remarks were expected to be discursive; I have made such as occurred to me; I have made them in a spirit of frankness and candor, and I shall adhere to them with just as much tenacity as ever characterized Ulysses S. Grant when he undertook the siege of Vicksburg. Sir, I have done. Mr. BUNDY obtained the floor, but yielded to Mr. STEVENS, who said: Mr. Speaker, I do not rise to make any lengthy reply to the distinguished Gentfrom Ohio, [Mr. SPAL DING.] Certainly I shall enterinto no personal controversy with him, for I have no feeling which would induce me to raise a personal issue with him. But when any gentleman advances doctrines here, I feel that those doctrines are public property, to be dealt with by each of us according to our sense of their soundness and worth, and that their condemnation ought to be in no way offensive to those gentlemen whose doctrines are thus condemned. They use the same privilege in regard to others. Hence I wish to say to the Gentfrom Ohio that I had no idea that my condemnation of some of his views was in any way a personal matter, or that it could be made personally offensive. If I had supposed so, I should have forborne those remarks. It is my desire here, while I deal boldly and fearlessly with principles, to deal fairly and justly with all individuals of this House of all parties. So much with regard to the animus of my remarks, which the gentleman appears to have misunderstood. Now, going back upon the ground work of those remarks, which was the resolution introduced by him some weeks ago, and which he has read to the House this morning, listening to his resolution from this point and to his attack upon the editor of the Washington Chronicle for what he had said with regard to the purport of that resolution, I could not help that the gentleman's views differed from mine. He may be right, but I gave it as my opinion that his views were wrong and mischievous. I hold the same doctrine today. Now, sir, what I meant by that was this: that resolution was the entering wedge into this House of the idea, the sanction of the idea, that when the proposed amendment to the Con; stitution of the U.S. should be adopted the States now in rebellion were to be admitted to their representation in this House. I knew that that doctrine had been assumed in some of the States, and had been enunciated in their platforms. I knew it had been argued, not only in the district of the gentleman, [Mr. SPALDING] but in other districts in Ohio, and the people there had been taught the doctrine that the constitutional amendment which we had proposed was the final action of Congress in regard to the admission of those States. In my judgment, a more pernicious heresy never was promulgated anywhere or by any party; and it left us open, if it were once adopted, to the influx from the South of all the unreconstructed rebels that choose to come here. I agree with the gentleman that when 3/4ths of the loyal States shall have ratified that amendment and I suppose all on this side of the House agree with me it will be: come a part of the Constitution of the U.S. Then, it being a part of the Constitution, according to the doctrine to which I have referred, what is there for the southern States to do but to send their Representatives to this before we admitted the rebels into this Hall, whenever, in a few days the northern States, the States that proposed the amendment, shall by a 3/4ths vote have ratified it, then, if the doctrine to which I have referred shall prevail, there is no earthly power in this House to keep them out. Now, I put it to this House and to the country if that would not be the most pernicious “pernicious” is the word I used in regard to the gentleman's resolution if that would not be the most pernicious doctrine, the most pernicious action that any rebel sympathizer could propose to this body? I did not misunderstand entirely the resolution of the gentleman, and I do not now. As I read it not perhaps as the gentleman understands it it is a soft invitation, a feeling the way to the very thing which I have just now stated. What was the resolution? “I?esolved, That the ComReconstruction be requested to inquire into the expediencyof passing a JtResolution declaratory of the purpose of congress in the reception of Sens&Reps from the rebellious States, respectively, upon the ratification by them of the constitutional amendment and the establishment of RFGs not inconsistent with the Constitution of the U.S. ” Now, sir, I think I saw this tadpole before it had its present shape. I think its present form is due in some measure to the gentleman's colleague, [Mr. BINGHAM, latwhose suggestion, I am inclined to believe, it was modified. In its present form the resolution looks a little better, but it really means nothing different. Why instruct the committee to inquire into the propriety of adopting a JtResolution provid.ing for the admission of the Representatives and Senators from those States as soon as the amendment is adopted if it was not intended as a broad insinuation that such a resolution should be passed, and that the southern rebels should be admitted on the adoption of the amendment? If that was not the purpose, why was the proposition offered? But the gentleman complained of the editor of the Chronicle, for it was in answer to an article of the editor that the gentleman made his remarks. He said that the editor charged him with inconsistency. The language of the resolution contemplates “the reception of Sens&Reps from the rebellious States respectively upon the ratification by them of the constitutional amendment, ” distinctly inviting and legalizing the action of those States upon the constitutional amendment. Could anything more effectually stultify this body? The gentleman did not intend to stultify us; but he would have done it undoubtedly. We have been fighting upon the ground that there are ten outlawed rebel communities