Mr. McKEE. Mr. Speaker, I do not know but the remarks of my colleague, [] as I have not my own written, will not throw me off somewhat from the course I intended to pursue. I did expect to have heard my colleague enlighten this house, as I know he has the capacity, on the question before it. I regret extremely that he has pursued the same line of policy that gentlemen belonging to the same political party have pursued ever smce the idea took Capitol in disst. They wanted no part in the legislation of the nation. They said they never would come back and now, at the end of the struggle, when their treason has been crushed and ground to powder, theirapologists on this floor say it is a usurpation to legislate because the voices of those rebels are not heard here. I thank God they are not heard in this Hall. They have no right here to be heard. We all remember when they had their cannon marshaled on the heights above this city threatening the destruction of all that was here and yet, according to the theor. of the gentlemen on the other side, their rights are all the same today. I do not desire to see the day when armed traitors, or men who u held the rebellion not armed. can come bac here and have the same rights that I and you and the men who upheld the banner of our country in the field have. Mr. Speaker, I do not know that the amendment now before the House as reported by the chairman of the committee is all that I would desire. I do not know that it satisfies even that honorable gentleman himself altogether. But I believe that it is the best thing they could do, and if can get nothing else intend to vote for that. M idea is this: that in regard to those States lately in rebellion, the tendency of things seems to be that they are to be represented here at an early day; that the men whose hands are yet dripping with treason, stained with the blood of the soldiers of our country, are to come back here and be participants in carrying on this Government. may be arrested. But I say the tendency appears to be that way; and if it is consummated, and they do come back, I want them to have just as small a representation as this House c would lifiia it if the amendment could go a little beyond what it does. I would like so to amend the constitution that no man who had raised his hand against the flag should ever be allowed to participate in any of the affairs of this Government. But it is not probable that we can o that far. Let us go just as far as we can. Gentlemen say that they are not willing to vote for an amendment that strikes 06 a part of the representation of the States; they are not willing to vote for an amendment that lessens Kentuckys representation upon this floor. The whole course of my colleagues remarks on this point is as the course of his party and I may say of the loyal party in Kentuckyhas been through a great part of the war, that Kentucky is the nation, and the U.S. a 2ndary apendage to her. ow, sir, if Kentucky in the future is to have such Representatives, a majority of them, asshe. has had during the last 2 years of this event ful struggle, and as the majority of her delegation here today, let us have just as few as possible of that kind. That is my argument upon that point. In my own State, of excitement, and when we were supported by the Arm of the U.S., we did pass a law by which we disfranchised men who had gone intothe rebellion; but when the storms we tover, when the conflict of arms ceased, the legislature ree nfranchised them, and the distinction there now is, not against traitors. but against men who have upheld the flag of our country. You may say to me that my people in Kentucky will not indorse the cutting own of her representation here. I care. not. what my people indorse. Convince me that I am rightand ou cannot convince me thatI am wrong when go against traitors and I will go upon that line whether one, 2, or 1000 stand by me in the State of Kentucky. I am not Kentuckys Representative upon this floor alone; I thank my God I take a wider survey of the field of in country than is wrapped up within the bounds of my own State, by her mountains and rivers;I thank my God that my eye looks out over the whole broad expanse of our land, from Maine to California, and from the northern lakes to the everglades of the South. I want to legislate for the whole land, and not for one part of it only. It is a mrrowminded view of the subject to so “I will not go for this proposition because Newenland will lose 2 or 3 Representatives; will not go for this proposition because California or the Northwest will come in foralarger share of the spoils, or because my own State will suffer.” Let us consider if it is for the good of our whole country, and act upon that theory. There are men in this House who have a little more faith in the honesty, integrity, wisdom, and uprightness of that class of men who rebelled than even Ipos sess, coming from southern soil. I must say, Mr. Speaker, in the light of events, that it has not developed itself yet to my mind that these people are in a fit condition to be represented ere by a large representation, if at all. Right here I would make one remark which may not be pertinent, and which some of my brethren may diEer with me in regard to, and it is simply t is: as I have said, I should like to go away back and strike at the root of this thing, and prevent all traitors from participating in the affairs of this Government. There was a time when we could have carried this doctrine out and no one would have grumbled at it. I fear that time has passed. I hope, however, that we may come back to it, because I believe, sir, that if we do not come back to that doctrine, in less than 4 years more we will be troubled by another war. The time to which I refer was when, before the great clash of our armies in front of Petersburg and Richmond, the rebel hosts succumbed to the power of the Federal arms and Lee surrendered, followed immediately by the collapse of the whole concern. Then we couldhave done anything. They were willing to accept any terms. All that the leaders expected was that they would be hung, or at most allowed to leave our shores in peace; and that was all they Ought to have had. The great mass of their followers simply expected that they would be allowed to return to their homes and there enjoy in peace and quiet the proceeds of their labor, With us to make the laws by which they were to be governed. But sir, in, a mistake was committed; when perman and Johnston met in NCarolina, and made the treaty, there I think the trouble began. I hold a paperin m hand containing it. It is familiar to all, and need not read it. But that treaty reestablished the rebel States in power, and set in motion the machinery that existed there all the time upon their taking the oath of allegiance; and there the trouble began. What was the result? The conference between Johnston and Sherman terminated on the 15th of April, 1865; and an abstract of the terms agree upon was forwarded to Washington as early as possible; and immediately afterward, on the 21st of April, the POTUS, just a short time after the assassination of that great man who had led us throu It the darkest hour, on the reception of that patch called his Cabinet connoil together and what was the result of their deliberations? Lt that council the action of GenlSherman was disapproved by the President, disapproved by the SecyWar, disapproved by GenlGrant, an by every member of the Cabinet. Who approved that treaty? The whole antiwar party; the whole Democratic party; the whole party which had been all the time against the Government of the U.S., and against forcing rebels and traitors to submit by ourarmed power and there is where they got their encouragement. They said to themse ves, Here is a great party in the North who desire that we shall be reinstated, with all our rights and privileges just as they were before.” They took courage, and it has gone on increasing and gentlemen will exeuse me when I so that I do not see the difference between the theory of that treaty of Sherman and Johnston and the present condition of the States as they exist in e South today. I may be wrong; but if I am I should like to have the difference pointed out to me by some distinguished gentleman upon this floor. Notv, I say that I favor this amendmentas reported from the committee, because I believe it is the best thing that we can get adopted by the States. I do not care whet or these men in the South ever allow the negro to vote or not. That is not a question about which I feel any concern at this time. I will, however, say here on that point, that whenever the negro develops sufficient capacity for all the rights of citizens, that he now has an opportunity to do, even my Democratic friends here will not be opposed to giving them to him and I will say a word further in reply to a remark of my colleague, He said, convince the Republican party that the negro will vote the Democratic ticket and they will drop this whole measure. I say, convince the Democratic party that the negro will vote their ticket, and they will crawl on their knees to draghim up. [Laughter.] But that is not the question here. In my opinion, this amendment leaves that whole question just where I believe it ought to rest, exactly in the position where I haveal ways contended in my short political career the question of suffrage should be, in the State itself and since we cannot change that basis, which I believe we cannot do, let it remain there. This amendment leaves it there and it rests entirely with them whether they enfranchise one race or another. On the general question of the suffrage for the negro I use make no explanation. My views are on record. I voted against the bill allowin negro suffrage in the DistCol. Idid not believe then, nor do I believe now, that this race, coming immediately out of bondage, is fit for all the rights of citizens. When they develop sufficient fitness for that purpose I will be the last man to withhold the right of suffrage from them. I am not afraid of social or political equality with any race, and I am sorryyes, sir, I am sorrythat my learned and distinguished colleague [Mr. HARDING] and the gentlemen who act with him are so fearful on that score. I was always taught to believe that in this country, said to be free, we had the right to choose ourown associates. I do not believe this amendm ent, if adopted, will take away that right. I think it will remain: and if any gentleman chooses to associate with a colored man, with a black man, or any other man or race of men, even the Hindoo or the Hottentot, he can do it. I believe in every man having the same show in this world for life, and when he develops all the capacities that fit men for the highest rights of citizenship, then let him have them. Now, in regard to the proposition of the honorable Gentfrom Ohio, [Mr. SCHENCK] lam opposed to it. I do not believe in basing representation upon actual voters, and without debatin that question I will give a very short reason or my opposition to it. It will have a tendency to lead States to confer suffrage upon all, to enfranchise men from other lands the moment they drop on our shores, as some of the States do already. I think this matter of suffrage should be guarded. While I hold to the great doctrine of universal luErage, let tll extend it onlyso far as we can bear it. Therefore I oppose the amendment offered by the Gentfrom Ohio, [Mr. SCHENCK] So far as concerns the great mass of amendments offered by gentlemen from the Republican partyof course no Democrat offers one, because he does not want the constitution amendedI have aid but very little attention to them, because have made up my mind that this one reported from the JtComReconstruction is the best for us to adopt.