Mr. RAYMOND. I prefer not to yield now. I think these general principles will be' admit ted by nearly every one. I know that men are apt to think these principles may be waived or relaxed a little to suit particular emergencies. Surely, they are apt to say, no harm will come from a slight irregularity of action. True, the Constitution does not warrant this. But this is a peculiar state of thin s. The people are expecting something, an we must give them something of this kind. Now, I have never yet seen the time when I believed the expected anything that was not just an reigople t, or that they were ever inclined to exact any action not in consonance with the Constitution of the U.S. But so many men have favorite theories of their own; every man has some peculiar ideas of what a Government should be, and he thinks that the political chaos which succeeds the war affords an opportunity for getting his ideas embodied in the Constitution, an thus make this the model Government he would have it. I have never heard this general as iration expressed more tersely or more fran ly than it was by the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, [Mr. Srnvsxsfine t now in his seat, in the remarks he made the other day in concluding the debate upon the proposed amendment to the Constitution. He then used the following language: “In in youth. in my manhood, in my old age. I had fond y dreamedthat when any fortunate chance a shouldhave broken up for awhile the foundation of our institutions, andreleasedas from ObllgllllCInSthe most tyrannical that everman imposed1nthe name of freedom, that the intelligent. pure, and Just men of this Republic, true to their professionsand their consciencesw, ould haveso remodeled all our iustitutions as to havefreed them from every vestigoof humanoppression.of inequality of rights.of the recognized degradation of the poor, and the superior castsof the rich. ‘In short. that no distinction would be toleratedin this urified Republic but what arose from merit and conuct. This bright dream has vanished ‘hke the baseless fabric of a vision.’ I find that weshall be obligedto becontent with patching pp the worst portionsof the ancientedifice.andleaving it. in many of its parts. to be swept through by are It, empestst, he frosts, and the storms of despot m. Now, sir, I take it there is scarcely a member on this floor who has not at some time or other indulged in dreams as high and hopeful as those thus exressed by the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, [KIT S'rnvs'ss.] But I do not think that many of us, or that many of the people of this country, would concur with him in recognizin in the war through which we have just passe that “fortunate chance" which he seems to consider it, fortunate because it “broke u the foundations of our Government” an gave theorists an opportunity to try their experiments upon it. o, sir, the people of this country look upon this war as a calamit, one of the direst and most dreadful that Go in His providence could send upon any nation; not unattended with compensations, it is true, for that same Providence that presides over the destinies of the human race, “out of evil still educing good, ” has given us many compensations for the terrible evils with which this war has been accompanied. It has given us, above all things, the opportunity which perhaps nothing else could sverhave given us, of purifying this Republic from what was always the chief blot upon its escutcheon, and always poisoned its sources of liberty and power the system of human slavery. But still the war itself was a calamity, a dire disaster, and if it had really broken up the foundations of our Government, if it had shaken in the least that grand tern is of liberty which our fathers reared, it wool have been tenfold the disaster that it really was. But, sir, it did not. That temple still stands in all its grand and s lendid beauty. We have not to “patch up the worst portions of the ancient e ifice;” it was only those parts of the structure, its original defects, that were shaken and shattered by the storm. Not one of its corner stones has been displaced. Not a single one of the grand arches has been in the least disturbed. Its towers still stand firm as the foundations of human freedom on which they rest. Nor, sir, will the people of this land a rec with the gentleman in denouncing the constitution of the U.S. for imposing “obligations the most tyrannical that ever man imposed in the name of freedom.” That constitution was the work of the noblest, purest patriots that ever adorned the annals of any age. It has done more to establish free government, to preserve and perpetuate the principles of human freedom, than any instrument ever framed, or any form of government ever established by the hand of man. Those who framed it did not attempt impossibilities. They did not sacrifice real good Within their reach to dreams of distant erfection that was beyond their reach. Dougtless they, like other men of lofty spirit and noble aspiration, had their visions, their high ideals of a pure and perfect commonwealth, but they were too wise and too practical in their wisdom to yield themselves to such false though fair illusions. Alas l sir, how often have such dreams as have be guiled the Gentfrom Pennsylvania filled the hearts and disappointed the hopes of noble spirits in all ages of the world! very nation has had experience of their futilit. Crom well, in England, aimed to establish a model republic, and under his mighty sway the grand soul of the sightloss Milton beheld, in lofty vision, a commonwealth arise which should more than realize the hopes and aspirations of the noblest spirits of the ancient and the modern world. With unrestricted power he forced reforms beyond the line where they could command the sympathy of the nation, and a reaction followed which, when Crom welfs head was beneath the sod, swe t away the model republic which he had foundbd, and gave place to corruption such as England, in all her history, had never seen before. The leaders of the French Revolution aspired to establish a model republic. They, too, had theirvisionsand theirdreams, brighter, brighter far, than the New Atlantis of soon or the Uto in of Sir Thomas More. Nowhere, sir, on the page of history or of literature will you find nobler sentiments, higher aspirations, grander reaches after political perfection than you will find in the writings of ltobespicrre, of StJust, of Camille Desmoulins, and others among the great leading spirits of the French Revolution. They, too, aimed at the loftiest ideas of political perfection. Perfect justice, perfect truth, nothing short of absolute and entire perfection, was to bear unrestricted sway in the realm of their creation. Inequality ofrights and of condition, all distinctions of rich and poor, were to disappear forever, and nothing was to have toleration for an hour but what arose from merit and conduct. But alas! sir, that bright dream, too, vanished "like the base less fabric of a vision." That republic sank in a sea of blood, and out of that sea rose the red right hand of remorseless power which clutched all the rights of the people in its grasp and plunged France into a tyranny tenfold worse than she had ever felt before. This, sir, is too often the sad consummation of attempts to enforce reforms upon an age and a people that are not ready for them. Model republics, noble and crfect common wealths, where no wrong she l find toleration and no man lack justice, are the object of all good men’s desires. But they are not let down by miracle from the vault of heaven. They spring not up like the prophet’s gourd, in a Single night, or if they do, like that prophet‘s gourd they wither and die with the 1st touch of the morning light. They come not on the heels of war. They can never be the birth of passion, they can only be the steady growth of time and the patient efforts of the good and wise. War may sweep away obstacles that obstruct their growth, as war with us has swept away human slavery, which is always and every where the foe of everything in character and society that is noble, just, and wise. And war may warm the soil swept by its bloody breath, so that seeds of reform shall the sooner sprin up and ripen to maturity. We hear much sai in glorification of men who are, in ideas and aspirations, in advance of their age. They are considered the prophets and the leaders of humanity; and sothey are. But they are not the statesmen, the workmen, the leaders of their immediate time. They are not the prac tical men who bring to pass the glories they predict. I have found, sir, in my experience and observation, that, so far as practical results are concerned, it is just about as unwise for a man to be ahead of the age in which he lives as to be behind it. It is like a general marching a mile ahead of the brigade or the corps that he commands. He might just as wel be a mile in its rear. No, sir; to be useful to our age we must live with it, walk by its sides, sympathize with its wants, feel its necessities bear its burdens, share its prejudices, or at least tolerate them, use the elements of power that belong to it, and not live in bright ideals of the future or dwell solely on the glories of the for advance. Work with the men of your day, and you will work to their best advantage, and will do all that man can do to secure and hasten the advent of that brighter time which is the goal and the guerdou of all our hopes. These reforms are growths, not mechanical creations. You cannot make a perfect Government as you would make a machine. Political institutious obey the laws of growth, and cannot be forced to follow any other laws. You must plant the seed and await its radual ripening to maturity “ 1st the blade, then the car; after that the full corn in the ear.” Let not the Gentfrom Pennsylvania then despair of the advancement, the urification, and perfection of our Republic. Ic has borne his part in the rand strife by which its advent is made possi lc. His eyes, now dimmed with honorable age and with long watching for the day which he so longs to see, may not witness its full meridian; but they have seen its dawning; and he may rest assured that the work he has so well commenced will not be left undone. But let him not be too impatient to force it on, or he may turn the dial backward and ruin all. As to the specific reforms of which we are speaking, I believe the day will soon come when there will be no distinction of rights, civil or political, on the ground of color. That distinction grew out of slavery. In the early days of the Republic, before slavery had become the gigantic power it afterward grew to be, there was no such distinction of color so far as suffrage was concerned. It was the fruit of slavery, and it received its death blow when slavery perished. The abolition of slave 'y swept away the very foundation of that cruel prejudice, and just as soon as the public mind, the mind and thought of those n10st directly concerned in the solution of this question, comes to realize this fact and is left free to weigh its meaning, just so soon will the great reform begin. I have no doubt that the people of the southern States will find it to be greatly to their interest in due time, in a very short time unless diverted from its consideration by hostile pressure from without, to establish political suffrage and civil rights on other foundations than those of color, and to do all we think necessary to perfect our republican institutions. But by pressing such reforms before the sum mer has preared the soil, we simply insure their being nipped by untimely frosts. By for cing them upon the people of other States, in advance of that public sentiment by which they can be sustained, we provoke hostilities which will outlive their cause and postpone for years, perhaps for generations, the very reforms we seek to promote. They must spring from another soil and be cherished by other culture. They must come from culture of the public conscience. from education, from experience of life, and that wise regard for the rights of others which the full and free enjoyment of our own never fails to teach. It is, and always must be, for the interest, the peace, the comfort, the prosperity, the safety, even, of the people in the southern States to give to all who ive in the midst of their society all the rights and privileges to which, by virtue of their common humanity, they are entitled. We may safely trust to the influence of this all pervading, ever waking principle for the reforms which the South may need. The less we meddle with the operation of this law of social and political growth the more rapidly will it work out its own results. We may aid its development and stimulate its growth by promoting harmony of interest and of feeling between the 2 races thus brought face to face. But if we take such steps as shall tend to plant distrust between them and array them in hostility to each other, we shall only postpone, and perhaps defeat altogether, the consummation we so much desire. But, sir, I will not follow this train of thought any further. I deem it unwise in pol icy, as well as unjustified by any just theories of the status of the southern States or of the effect of the rebellion, to attempt the “ reconstruction ” of our Government from its foundations. I believe the President takes a far wiser view of our interests and necessities when he seeks the “restoration” of our Union to its old integrity, and of our Government to'its ancient normal operation under the Constitution of the U.S. Our fathers laid the corner stone of our institutions on the great principle of self government. They held that all who are subjects of law should have a vorce directly or indirectly in making the law. They held that the consent of the governed was the only just source of the power of rulers not untfer some circumstances but under all. They did not believe GreatBritain had a right to impese taxes upon 2 million subjects who were not represented in her Parliament, and they rebelled because they were thus ruled. They held that rebellion to be just. They earned praise and eternal fame, and won their independence and a national existence by that rebellion. Do you believe, sir, they would have deemed it right for the Government of the U.S. to make laws for 8 millions of their people who were to obey those laws and have no voice in making them? Is that in harmony with our system? Is it not an 0 en, fin rant repudiation of the Only riuciplb on which our government. rests? on tell me it is temporary, conditional. I care not. It asserts a right which cannot exist an hour without violating the fundamental principle of our institutions. You tell me these 8 millions have forfeited their rights; that they have ceased to be States; that they are conquered provinces. subject only to the laws of war. I 0 not believe a word of it. The theory has no warrant in our constitution or in the theory of our Government. But I waive all that. If I were to grant it all it would make no difference in my action on this question. Ifwe had the power asserted in all its plenitude I would not use it, because I do not believe it would be for the interest of the country that it should be used. I say with Edmund Burke, in his great speech in the English Parliament in 1775, on “conciliation with America” which, by the way, I think is better adapted to the state of our public uffairs at the present moment than 9 10thsof those made on this floor, my own included “It is not what a lawyer tells me I may do; it is what humanity, justice, and reason tell me I ought to do. The question is not with me whether we have the right to make our people miserable, but whether it is not our interest to make them happy.” We are not seeking the settlement of a case in a county court; we are seeking the tranquillity of an im erial republic. We are aiming at the lottiest and ighest results which it is permitted to man to aspire to anywhere or at any time the peace, order, strength, prosperity, and power ofAmer ion and the welfare of the human race. So that be wisely and conscientiously sought, I care not for technicalities. I say that, in my judgment, the interest of this nation, the interest of every State in this Union, the interest of every man in every State of this Union demands that we shall consider this question upon a different basis, a different footing altogether. That interest demands we shall treat this question as we have treated all others hitherto, on the basis of the principles which lie at the foundation of our Government, with a wise regard to theimpulses and weaknesses of human nature and a steady reference to the circumstances and general character and condition of those with whom we have to deal. You tell me these men are not fit to share in the Government; that they are sullen, resentful, defiant; that they still cling to the right of secession. Grant it. How are we to make them better fitted? Will coer cion, will exclusion do it? Will they change their opinions because we refuse them representation? Will they love us with all t elr hearts because we deny them all participation in our and their utfairs? Will they become converts to our principles because we deny their right to hol any others? Will they deem as models of courage because we brand their dead sons who perished in their cause as cow ards, and denounce as felony the courage and devotion which led them to death? Iecan know little of human nature if we dream of such results. You admit that during the 1st 6 months after their surrender their demeanor was unimpeachable. You say they have changed and become defiant, and you attribute this change to the leniency they received at the hands of the President. Are you quite sure you have hit the right reason? Is it not barely possible that your own action may have had something to do with this alleged change of the public mind in the southern States? I think shall not be contradicted in point of fact when I say the meeting of Congress, the feeling of the southern States toward the national Government was one ofsubmission, of acquiescence, and of readiness to renew, in sincerity and in truth, their allegiance to the Constitution and Government of t n: U.S. Now, what, “sir, has changed that temper, so far as it has been change at all? I think there is fair reason for believing that,when Congress assumed a hostile attitude, when it began to declare that the people of the South were not fit to take part in the Government, that they had forfeited all their rights and could not be admitted to representation, that they were conquered subjects, and fellow citizens no longer; whcn we began to give currency to hostile and mischievous reports from the South, magnifying every instance of violence and of crime. charing them wholly to political causes and on the otrcugthof those allegations entering upon hostile legislation; I think it not at all impossible that the clfect of this action upon the southern mind was 1st to arrest its loyal tendencies and then to make it sullen, defiant, and hostile. I think I have some warrant for this opinion in aknowledge of what would take place in my own or in the mind of every one of us under similar circumstances. Is there a man here, I care not what may be his opinion on this general subject, who oes not feel in his heart that hostility and distrust toward him from others would engender hostility in his own mind toward them? Is there anything in human nature to controvert this general statement? Can any man point me to an instatLce in history in which any society or any nation, great or small, was ever coerced into sympathy of sentiment with the dominant power by measures of force? I have hitherto so often referred to historical precedents on this subject that I am unwilling to refer to them again; and yet they cannot be cited too often. Did coercion bring Hungary to sympathize with Austria, to acknowledge Austrian rule or yield prompt and cheerful obedience to Austrian decrees? For 15 years, under this discipline, Hun ry was defiant and maintained a aughty an sullen independence; and Austria, feeling more and more the need of her sympa thy and aid. was finaliy forced to concede every thing that Hungary had claimed, an independent parliament and the right to crown her own kin s. Ifas the hostile feeling of Ireland been assuaged by the treatment she has experienced at the hands of England? Has Poland become less hostile by reason of her treatment by Russia? The greatest example ever ali'orded in the history of the world of the attempt on the part of a ruling power to coerce opinion and make men think like their oppressors is furnished by the Inquisition. Force was never applied so directl and so sharply upon the object sought to be accomplished, and what was the result? We are not using the machinery of the Inquisition, it is true; we are not employing “ Luke’s iron boot or Damian’s bed of steel;” but we are acting upon the identical principles which were then avowed. Now, sir, nations are like men. Communities are but aggregations of individuals. If you treat them kindly you make them friends. If you treat them with hostility inevitably and by a natural law they become enemies. In my judgment, sir, ifthere is anything established by the law of human nature, by what we know of the elements of influence on societies and States and by the experience of nations in all ages, it is that the people of these States can never be made more loyal, more 'heartily attached to our Government and better fitted to share its councils by excluding them all, loyal and disloyal alike, from all participation in them. Every year of such exclusion will only make them worse. I do not say thatduring the summer of last year, from the time the rebels laid down their arms until: 4 we have not the physical power to enforce obe dience upon them, to govern them by force and not by consent, but I 0 say thatif we continue that system 3, 5, or 7 years longer, we must quadruple our armies and double the taxes we impOse upon the people today. And now. sir, before I close my remarks, already much too long, I desire to say a few words upon the relation of the action we may take here to the Union party that party which is today in possession of all depts of the Government and which is responsible for the conduct of public affairs. I speak not of party in any narrow sense nor as an agency for procuring patronage, place, and power for selfish reasons or for se fish ends, at as an agent of political reform, as a means of promoting the public good. The Union party has carried this country through the war. The Gentfrom Wisconsin [Mr. ELD mnon] made the remark the other day that “we have saved the Union, " and, as at that moment the discussion was of a somewhat ar tisan character, I, perhaps rather hastily, row the inference that he intended to so that the Democratic party had saved the Uynion. A little reflection, however, satisfied me that this was a misapprehension of his meaning; because neither he nor anybody else will deny, I think, that what is known as the Union party has carried the country through the war by which the rebellion has been quelled. That party grew out of the necessities which the rebellion created. The party in opposition to the Dem ocratic party at the commencement of the war was the Republican party. That was formed for the purpose of checking the aggressions of slavery. It had done that effectually. But, its success furnished the occasion and the pretext for the rebellion, and out of the necessity of crushing the rebellion blew up the Union party, composed of the bul t of the Republican party, and ofacccssions large accessions, Iam proud to say from what had been known as the Democratic party of the northern and western States. There were to be found in the Union party 1000s of men who, the moment the country was in danger, abandoned party 0r anizations and joined those who sustainct the Administration upon which devolved the duty of suppressing the rebellion. The Democratic party, as an organization, did not assume that position. Its attitude was one of continued opposition. The Union party was then left to carry the country through the war, and its labors were crowned with success, and it gained what any party which renders great services will always gain, a strong, powerful hold upon the sympathy, the attachment, the confidence, and the gratitude of the people of the U.S.