Mr. HALE. Mr. Speaker, the quesfion before the House strikes me as one eminently practical in its nature mot one of theory, not conservatism and the purest and one to be decided according to any hypothesis as to general rights or general forms o government. The constitution of the U.S. vests in Congress exclusive jurisdiction for the purpose of legislation over this District. The urisdietion thus vested in us we cannotabdicate. We do not propose to abdicate it. We simply propose to elegate certain local and adminis trative powers to theinhabitants of this District, or some of them, in such manner as we shall deem best. This bill does not propose to commit to the people of the District, or to anybody except this Congress, any power of general Legislation. We are endeavoring merely to find out to whom we may best delegate the control of certain municipa affairs having relation to schools, poorlaws, streets, inferior courts of jus ticc, police, and the like, and the simple question, asit seems to me, which addressesitselfto this House, and should address itselfto every member of the House, is, what is the best, the most feasible, plan, all things considered, for the accomplishment of this work? Theoretical questions as to inalienable or inherent rights of suffrage or anything else do not, I thin, arise here. The jurisdiction lies in us; the authority emanates from us. Who ever receives it from us receives it as a free gift of grace, (if I may be allowed the expression) not of right. I confess that, for one, I have little ympathy with those who uniformly up cal to theoretical and abstract, questions of rightand wrong as the sole gui cs for our course in legislative affairs. 1 do not believe that statesmanship is founded exclusivel, Or even mainly, on theoretical propositions. believe that true statesmanship must learn to regard the facts and circumstances surrounding every proposition; must learn to look at the things which bear upon it in all directions; must learn that abstractions and theories must yield from time to time to the circumstances of the case. I do not even believe it wise for statesmen always to insist on what they may consider as pure yabstract right. While I would never abandon or yield a principle which I deemed as right and of vitailand essential importance, I would consider that we live in a world where all our efforts must be more or lesstinctured with imperfection that we must not expect always to have that which we would considerunder all circumstances the most highly desirable thing, but we must learn to be satisfied with taking the best that we can attain. Hence it is that I regret to have heard expressions from members of my own party, in this House and out of it, indicating that they will insist upon their own peculiar views as to the details of this question, to the exclusion of all others, and that they are ready to ally themselves with our political antagonists for the purpose of defeating this proposition, which they think comes in some measure short of their own theories. I believe, sir, we ought to try to harmonize our own views, that each ought to be willing to yield something of his personal impressions to meet the views of his associates upon this floor, and that by that course, and that course alone, we will attain to wise system of legislation here. Mr. Speaker, I have heard much said on this floor of conservatism and of radicalism. I do not know, sir, that I understand the meaning attached to those words here. I am raw in parliamentary usage and unused to parliamentary nomenclature. I can only say I for one, as I understand the true meaning of those words, there is no conflict between the purest and loftiest profoundest radicalism. It has pleased friends o mine it on this floor to call me a conservative; and it has pleased friends of mine in other places to call me a radical. With my own construction of those words, I am willing to claim as well as to accept both appellations. If it be radicalism to favor an eradication of wrong, of everything that is unjust, of everything that is prejudicial to the public interests, from our politieal system just as fast as a due regard to the life an constitution of the patient under treatment may permit, then most certainly I claim to be a radical. If it be conservatism to desire to preserve in full force and strength all that is excellent and it is almost all excellent in our political system, then most certainly I claim to be a conservative. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that the question before this House concerns exclusively the negro. If it did, I should be likely to express an opinion which I have sometimes before cu tertained, that perhaps the negro was engrossing a larger proportion of our time and attention than his comparative numerical force in this country or the extent of his interests here fairly entitled him to. I do not claim to be pe culiarly or exclusively the friend of the negro. As belonging to the white race, connected with it by the tics of consanguinity, atlinity, association, and habit, I may be pardoned for my pref erence for the white race. On the other hand, I have no sympath with the propositions put forth at times from the other si e of the House, that this is exclusively a white mans Government, and that no black man is to be recognized as a citizen here. I den it utterly. I believe, when the Declaration of ndependenec put forth those principles so familiar to us all, it put them forth on behalf of all men, and not merely on behalf of white men. But, again, I repel all the charges which have been made upon myself, and upon those who agree with me, from this side of pthe House, of being hostile to the black race or unmindful of their rights. The Gentfrom Indiana [Mr. JULIAN yesterday, in the course of his elaborate and able discussion of this question, charged that those who were in favor of restricting suffrage as proposed by these amendments were impelled to that course by hate Of the negro; that it was his color and not his ignorance they feared; and he referred to negrohating constituencies, as he was pleased to term them, Represented by conservative gentlemen upon this floor. For myself and my constituents I repel the charm, and I challenge him to answer by what authority he accuses me and my constituents of hating any portion of Gods human creation. It was with feelings almost of pain, almost of indignation, that I heard the Gentfrom Illinois [Mr. Fauxswonru] the other da, in the course ofliis speech, use the name of bred erick Don lass, a colored man most widely known an most highly respected, in a connection I could not but consider as derogatory and insulting to him. The gentleman saw fit to select the name of a person designated by him as the type and embodiment of all that was offensive to all his ideas ofloyalty and worth, Mr. Fernando Wood, and to place him on a level with Mr. Douglass, as the type and embodiment of all thatis worthy and excellent in the colored race. I neither indorse or repudiate the position the gentleman saw fit to assign to Mr. Wood, but earnestly protest against such a compliment to Mr. Don lhss. For myself, I can only say that the rad icalism of the Gentfrom Illinois [Mr. Fanxswonml falls far short of my own conservatism. I now nothing in Frederick Doug lass that should inducc the Gentfrom Illinois, or myself, or any other member of this House, be he the highest or proudest in it in intellectual or social position, to consider himself in any degree disvraced or dishonored by occupying a seat by the side ofFrederick Doug lass on this floor or elsewhere.