Mr. BROWN. I do not desire to take any Wart in this debate, Mr. President, and should iave probably said nothing but for an allusion which dro iped from the Senfrom Kansas to a bill w nch was passed by the last Congress in regard to “guarantying to certain States, whose governments have been usurped or overthrown, a RFG, " and the implication which fell from him that the gentlemen on this side of the Senate were guilty of stultifying themselves in now contending for suffrage for the colored race as one of the essential guarantees in reconstructing “liese States. I desire injustice to myself to make this statement: that when that bill came from the HoRep at the last Congress, and was pressed u.10“us here, containing as it did a feature in it which excluded the negroesin the southern Statesfrom suffrage, I, for one, announced myself as utterly opposed to the bill. I furthermore stated on the floor of the Senate publicly thutI never would vote for that bill, or for any other bill reconstructing those States, that did not guaranty to that class of citizens, the loyal colored population of the South, a right of suffrage desire to reiterate that statement toay, sir, and to say that by no possibility and at no time and under no circumstances will I cast any vote for restoring those States.to their original status in the Union and admitting back here their Senators to participate in our legislation until sntfra e shall have been granted to that class of peop c. I believe no other reconstruction will ever ive peace to the South, security to the noni, or permanent and contented union to both sections, to all classes aod to every race. So much for my own position. But, Mr. President, of all the Senators on this floor who do now or may heretofore have acted with the renblican party, the Senfrom Kansas is the ast one entitled to make any But such crimination against those who may have supported that bill in its original form. t was on my motion, as Senators will remember, that an alnendmentin the nature of asubstitute was put upon that bill, striking out all after the enacting clause, and along with it, of course, the clause which prohibited any colored citizen from exercising the right of suffrage, and providing simply that no election should transpire in any of those States until it had 1st been authorized by act of Congress. On that amendment, which would have saved the rights of the colored citizens from absolute sacrifice, and left them for future assertion, and, indeed, on all the intermediate amendments to that bill having the same end in view, the Senfrom Kansas voted side by side with the Senfrom Ohio, whom he now accuses of stul tifying himself by that bill and his votes there upon. I further desire to say, air, that when that bill wannmended by the revalenee of my motion and sent back to the HoRep, the House refused to concur, and returned their bill in its original shape. A committee of conference was called for, and that committee of conference, at the head of which was the Senfrom Ohio, recommended that the Senate reeede from its amendment, the result of doing which would be to leave the hill just as it came from the HoRep, with that section in it comlining the right of suffrage in the rebel States exclusively to whites, and thus precluding any, even such limited colored suffrage as the Senfrom Kansas new professes to favor. On that motion the yeas and nuys were called, and the Senfrom Kansas voted side by side with the Senfrom Ohio both voting in the affirmative. With what face, therefore, ean he talk about the Senfrom Ohio stnltifying himself by then voting to reconv struct the rebel States on an exclusively white basis, and now contending for colored suffrage as an essential guarantee for a safe restoration. when he himself, the Senfrom Kansas, did exactly the same thing voting with him in every pesition then and indorsing the bill as it came from the HoRep? But, sir, I will read from the ournal of the Senate the vote as recorded on this motion of the Senfrom Ohio to recede. Here it is: “The Senateproceededto consider the resolution of the HoRep disagreeing to the amendment of the Senate to the bill of the House (H.R.No. 244)to guaranty to certain States.whose governments have been usurped or overthrown, a RFG, and asking a conference with the Senate thereon and "On motion by Mr. VADE that the Senate recede from its amendmentto the said bill, determined in the affirmative ycas18. MIOn inction by Mr. SAULSBURY, the yeas&nays bein: desired byone 5th of the Senatorspresent. "Those who voted in the athrlnativearc. Messrs. Anthony. Chandler, Clark. Conness. Foot, Harlan, Harris. lIowc, Lane. of Kansas, Morrnn, Pomeroy, Ramsey. Sherman. Sprague. Sumner, Wade. Wilkin son, Wilson." Sir, the Senfrom Kansas made a boast in his remarks when up that itwas he who told President Lincoln to veto that bill and that be reflected upon that advice so tendered by him as one of the proudest nets of his life. Of course as he says so it is not permitted me to doubt that he did so advise the President, but in view of the fact of his votes in favor of the bill, in favor of it. as against amendments that would have relieved it of all its obnoxious features, the question of how lnuch credit the Senfrom Kansas is entitled to for so advising the POTUS and urging him, as he declares, to pocket that bill, I leave for him and the Senate to determine. I have only to say further, for my own part, thatI did approve of the action of the resident in defeating that bill, but it was i because I opposed it throughout and thought i it would have been a most unjust and disastrous measure.