Mr. HOWE, If this is not germane to that question, I cannot conceive very well what should be. [Laughter] I am very clear that it is germane to the debate which has taken place on the question, and I supposed that the present debate was strictly in or er; therefore in carrying it out I supposed that I was strictly in order. But to answer the question of my colleague, I believe the record a ows that I did not vote on that question. I believe the investigation shows that I was engaged at the time on the ComFinance. I want to say that if I had been here, I do not think there is any rational doubt that I should have voted for that propoaition, because the record of the debates which have taken place here will show that I have made repeated demands since 1861 for such a legislative declaration as that was. Mr. President, I refer to that little passage of history new in connection with the statement of my colleague that his vote was sanctioned by the State convention, simply, as I said, to show that not only the State COHr veution was silent upon that precise point, but that he himself had committed himself to the doctrine which is new entertained by the great bulk of his friends on this floor. The 2nd vote which he gave here, and which has occasioned great reret among our friends at home, was the vote e gave on the passage of the Freedmens Bureau bill, socalled, over the veto of the President. The expedienc of that mensure, and its constitutionality, suppose, he had himself declared, as I understand, having voted in favor of its passage when it passed the Senate. To that be had given his assent. Of course, when he voted fort at bill be was not voting in defiance of instructions which the late State convention had given him. He did not understand that that State convention had incorporated anything into their platform which precluded him from voting for the passage of that bill. If he had, he would not have voted for it When the civil rights bill, socalled, passed the Senate, I believe my colleague did not vote for it; but I believe he did any, subsequently, that if he had been in his place he should have voted for it; and would he have said so, will he assert now that he would have made such a declaration, if he had supposed that the late State convention had instructed him against iving any such vote? I do not conceive that O would have made any such declaration. 1866. 216g I conclude, therefore, that I am abundantly justified in saying that to each one of the measures upon which he has given a vote which has occasioned regret in our State he had previously given his assent and nowI thin I have a right, and I think it is my duty, to plead these facts in defense, not of myself. nor by way of prosecuting my colleague for one moment or by one inch, but to plead them in justification of the action of the recent Legislature of Wisconsin. He asserts that that Legislature, in instructing him to resign or instructing him as to his votes, have themselves violated instructions given to them by the convention from which he says the originated. In the 1st place, I think, it is fair to say that the members of the Legislature are in no way bound by the action of that convention. The members of the Legislature represent precisely the same constituency that the convention did. They do not take instructions from any convention. It would be fair to say this, erhups, of officers elected by the State and se ccted by the convention; but the members who represented that State in its Senate and in its HoRep were not selected by that convention, do not represent it, are not responsible to it. 2ndly, I say once more, what I have already said, that the convention from which he says that Legislature sprang gave no such instructions as he has appealed to. Mr. President, I believe this is all I need say in defense of the Legislature of Wisconsin. I cannot quit the subject without saying once more that my purpose in saying this is not in any way to attack my colleague. I thought I was bound to say something in defense of the legislature. I believe they acted in entire good faigi. I believe the difference of opinion which has developed between them and my collea us has occasioned them heartfelt regret; but that they have represented the loyal no, I will not use thatterm now, speakiu ot political partiesthat they have represented the Union party of that State, I must be allowed to say there is no longer no room or any excuse for denying., Tbat should be conceded. It has become the Tushion, which my honorable friendfrom Ne wida [Mr. NYE] yesterday legitimated itnever u s legitimate before to read from letters extensively. As I received one yesterday from a gentleman who never allowed himself to be m led anything but a Democrat until this war broke out, a gentleman holding a very high official position in our State, a position assigned to him by the Democratic party, and holdin it in a very strong Democratic neighborhood and district, I feel tempted here, upon this point and in this connection, to read one para Tph. He has been known in our State since the rebellion broke out as a war Democrat, so classified in the nomenclature of parties in that State. He says: "The Union party, including the war Democrats stand by Congressin Wisconsin and no palavering will wheodlo our peopleonthis simple issue. Wears for reconstruction on the basisofjusticu, and not for the incorporation of the rebel elementwithout cither reconstructionor justice. Congress is right and the President wrong on this issue."