Mr. MOULTON. Mr. Speaker, permit me to say with reference to those States, that the difference between the gentlemen on the other side and us on this question is that they are willing that whoever come up here as Representatives, and can take that oath, shall be admitted as members of this House, while we upon this side are not satisfied with that, but desire to know the sentiment, the spirit, the feeling of the men who electthem. Tukelennessee, for example. What is the condition in Tennessee today. It is true that highminded, loyal, patriotic men, whom I res act as much as any ody, are here today seeing to represent Tennessee. But what is the testimony from Tennessee today? Why it is this: it is true, by the aid of Federal ba onets most of these menwere elected. The robe swere deterred from the ballotbox. But when you withdraw the Federal power from the State of Tennessee there will be 2 rebels to one loyal man; and the next delegation sent up here will be as different from the honorable men here to day as the sun is from darkness. Where then will be the State of Tennessee? The position of the Union party on this side of the Iouse is that we must be satisfied there is a majority of loyal constituenc behind that can control the State in favor of the Government, and in favor of the flag, who will stand by the Government and support it in good faith and spirit in all of its constitutional acts. The gentleman says this is a reagitation of the negro question. Permit me to say to the gentleman on the other side, so long as this present unnatural condition of things remains, so long as 4 men in the boii the riiifithtes are deprived of all their civil rights, so long as that condition exists, there will be agitation to all eternity. Permit me to say, this agitation will continue, and that I am in favor of continiiin this agitation until every man shall be protected in allliis civil rights under the laws. That is the kind of agitation I am in favor of; and permit me to sa, Mr. Speaker, that this sentiment is held by the great mans of the people, not only inmy State, but throughout the orthwest. I repeat, that such an unnatural conditiOn of things cannot exist in any free Government, such as 4 million men being crowded out, deprived of their rights and With no security against the rapacity and violenceof their persecutors. No republican institutions can exist or ever did exist under such circumstances. repeat again, sir, that the continuance of this bureau depends entirely uppn the people of the southern States themselves; that they can remove it sooner, but that it may be continued and ought to be continued for the purpose of the protection of this helpless class of people. So far as the expenses connected With this bureau are concerned, of course appropriations will have to be made. It grows out of the necessity of the thing itself. We cannot help it. Let me put the proposition, and let gentlemen answer it. if they can. Suppose the Federal power was removed from the southern States today; suppose the Army was removed; suppose there was no Freedmens Bureau for the purpose of protecting freedmen and white refu gees there, what would be the consequencps? Vhy, sir, the entire body of freedmen would be annihilated, enslaved, or expatriated. No Union man would have any rights there at all. The testimony which will be published that has been exhibited before the committee of 15 will astonish the world as to the hy ocrisy of southern leaders and the condition oij things in the South. Mr. Speaker, I will detain the House but a moment longer. It. has been urged here, and it is the great objection which seems to have been urged against this bill, that it takes the property of one man and gives it to another. permit me to say there is no provisiOn in this bill which authorizes any such this. The Opposition say that by the order of tcGovernment permission is given to refugees and freedmen to locate on certain lands in the South. That is true. They are now located on certain lands in the South. They were located there by the order of GenlSherman more than a year ago, when he stood there as the conqueror of that country. Every one admits that at the time the order was made it was legal, it. was constitution al, and it was strictl in accordance with the laws of war. I would ike to have my friends on the other side answer whether it was or was not in accordance with the laws of war when the order was made. If the order was constitutional when it was made as an act of war for the purpose of protecting those freed men and refugees, and as the Depts of the Government still decide the War has not ended, what is the reason why we shall not continue the operation of this order until the war entirely ceases? I should like to have the honorable gentleman on the Opposite side answer that question. v It is not taking the property of one man to give it to another. It is the direct act of the conqueror sanctioned by war, and that war is not yet ended. We are ocen ying those lands which onght to be confiscate as the property of the puilic enemy. This, Mr. Speaker, is the substance of the objections ur edainst this bill. It seems to me that they have been sufficiently answered. They do not militate against the main provisions of the bill, and we ought to s it. We are in duty bound to pass it, a we will be derelict to our duty if we do not. The people everywhere demand its passage. LIGHTING riin noun or THE OAPITOL.