Mr. CONKLING.Mr. Speaker, I should be recreant to candor were I to attempt to conceal my amazement at the scene now assing before us. On] eightshortdaysago an 11 States were si cut and absent here, because they had participated in guilty rebellion, and because they were not in tit condition to shire in the government and control of this country. 7 short days ago we found one of these States with loyalty so far retrieved, one State so far void of present offenses, that the ban was withdrawn from her and she again placed upon an equal footing with the most favored States in the Union. The doors were instantly thrown open to her Sens&Reps, the whole case was disposed of, and the nation approved the act. ennessee was restored to her birthright, her representatives were in vested with every immunity and privilege of the representatives from NewYork or enn sylvania, and on the same terms. Was not this enough? No one asked for more. Nothing further could begranted. Nothing further would have been accepted could it have been offered. Here the matter should have rested. Here it should have been left forever undisturbed. But no; before one week has made its round we are called upon to stultify ourselves, to wound the interests of the nation, to surrender the position held by the loyal people of the country almost unanimously, and the exigency is that a particular citizen of Tennessee seeks to effect his entrance to the Senate of the U.S. without being uulified like every other man who is permitte to enter there. You, sir, who sit in the chair, and every other member of this House, at the threshold took an oath which every man must take before he can cross that threshold. Why ‘I because the public good requires it; so it has been inscribed on the statute 00k. Yet in the fast flying hours of the closing night of this 8 mouths' session, we are suddenly up ealed to to give up this safeguard, to cleave own this statute, or to allow it to be trampled under foot. And there seems danger that the appeal may be listened to. How far have we drifted from our moorings when this can be true? We met here in December, divided by many differences, but. there was one ground common torall. There was one ground upon which every man in the nation, who retentihd to be loyal, asserted that he stood. Vhat was this common sentiment? It was that the Government must be preserved from its admitted enemies; that the destinies of the nation should never be yielded up to men whose hands and faces are dripping with the blood of murder. Upon that platform we all stood. Some, not all, insisted upon indemnity for the ast; some, not all, insisted upon security for the future; but all insisted that the public debt should be inviolate forever. And alpro tested that the power to legislate or to prevent legislation should never be given to those who would wring taxes from our people or take money from the Treasury to pay the debts contracted by rebels for the ruin of their country. All admitted that to insure these 2 ends the seats in this House and in the Senate must be occupied only by those true to the genius and faithful to the mission of this government. I say we differed as to the means, as to the conditions, as to the safeguards which were necessary. The great majority of men deemed the “test oath” alone entirely inade quate. They said, “If you could always maintain and enforce the provision that no man should sit in Congress who could not truly take the oath, there would be som safety, " but the argued, that after southern representatives ha' been admitted, the oath might be repealed, or that men might take it dishonestly and evade it. The only question was whether the “ test oath” was enough who dared to say itwas too much? Who ventured to argue that we should be safe with less? Who, I mean, that holds the creed of the Union party? The POTUS, thou it he leads the sentiment which an onizes t a position held by the Union majorities in congress, has never in public utterance intimated that we could safe] remove this last impediment from the put of those seeking seats here or in the Senate. 0: the contrary. the President has relied on the “test oath ” as one of the corner stones of his argument. lees. THE concusssmNAL gloss. 4273 With all the sway of his great place, and with all the emphasis he has employed, he has in sisted throughout that the existence of the test oath made it safe for each House to admit those who could take it. He has said that, without looking to the constituenc, we on ht to admit men regularly elected who could qualify by taking the oath. Has not this been the President’s position? Has he not defined loyal men to e those who could take the oath which you took, Mr. Speaker, which I took, and whiph all must take who would enter upon any office, as it stands on the age of the statute?