Mr. HENDERSON. I thought that was the o ect of this amendment. Mr. STEWART. Mr. President, as I am in favor of reconsidering this proposition and rejecting the proposed amendment, it may be proper tor me to state my reasons, as the are somewhat different from an reasons that I have heard. If my views ha been expressed by any other Senator I should not take this occasion to trouble the Senate with any remarks on this subject. I have no doubt of the power of Congress to.refuse to pay the appointees named in this amendment, or to reuse to pay anybody else, or to refuse to pass any appropriation bills what.ever. I do not think there 18any doubt about Ihe power of the President to veto any bill that we may pass. I do not think there is any question of power involved, because that is ample. We can refuse to pass any bill or make any appropriation; but it is a question of policy, a question of a correct line of conduct. Inas much as it has been the habit in this Government for the last 30 years for the POTUS to remove officers during the vacation of Congress and to appoint and commission others, and for the Governmentto pay them, there must be some new condition of things to make a.law of this kind necessary at this particular time. It has not been the policy of congress for the last 30 years to pass a law of this kind, and of course there must be some special reason now influencing Congress inducing them to pass such a law at the present time. I have heard a great deal about the Presidents policy and the policy of Congress. I have heard a great deal about sustaining the policy of the President and sustaining the policy of Congress. The object of this amendment. so far as I have been able to learn from the course of this discussion, is to prevent the President from using this patronage in support of his policy. The world)will so understand it. I believe that has been avowed here upon this floor. I do not think an one doubts that the object of this legislation is to prevent the President from using the power of his patron age to sustain his policy, it is said, as against the policy of Congress. If it be true that the President has a very bad policy, a policy that will be entirely destructive to the country, and Congress has a very good policy that will save the country, then it may be well to exercise this extraordinary power, unusual as it is; but that involves too extended a discussion for the present time. There is no danger until congress does adjourn. While Congress is in session the Senate can reject all the appointments of the President; they need not confirm any of his appointments that are not suitable, and consequently no evil can arise until after the adjournment. I suggest whether it would not be well to wait until the policy of Congress shall be devel oped, so that we can compare it with the pol icy of the President, after we know what the policy of Congress is. exactlg I admit that do not understand the policy of Congress and I do not wish to commence a war on the resident as such per80 until we get in a position to know whether we agree or not. It seems to me we should devote ourselves to the all important question of knowing exactly how we stand, and what we intend to do, and then there will be time enough to take all the necessary means to defend that policy when it is known. I have differed sometimes with the President, and sometimes with the majority of Congress, and I expect I shall continue to do so, and to exercise my judgment upon all questions; but when I see that Congress has a better plan than the President, I shall take every means I can to vindicate that plan. Now, what are the plans of the 2, so far as they have been ascertained and developed? I appeal to Senators and ask them what are the plans of the 2, and what do they propose to accomplish? I have never indorsed the President s plan in full; I have always had objections to it, and stated them on all occasions; it does not meet the whole question; but it is a lain and simpleplan. He says to us, “Admit loyal members at once; restore the Union on that basisretain your test oath; admit those who can take that test oath; and recognize the States as they existed.” Some of us are not satisfied with that. It is possible that we shall never get anything better, however, in this Congress. Now, what is the policy of Congress? That is the most difficult thing to ascertain that I know of. It is stated that we want security for the future. I admit that. I feel the necessity of security for the future. I am a warm advo cate for all the securities that can be taken for our reiublican institutions in the future. Iwill go as ar as any man in this Congress to obtain those securities which shall do us some good. I am not afraid to meet any question, whether it may be called popular or unpopular, when the emer ency arises to obtain a guarantee for security tor the future; and I am not afraid to advocate any proposition which will give as security for the future. The question of negro suffrage has been the only grand difficulty. I stated to my constituents before I left home that whenever I came to the conclusion. that negro suffrage was a necessity as a security for the future in the reconstruction of these States I should O for it. I came here. I found both Houses of congress advocating this theory. I found them aying down the doctrine that it was the only security that could be taken. I found them earnest in its advocacy. In the other House a bill was introduced granting universal negro suffrage in the DistCol. That bill drew forth a discussion which will mark the annals of the history of debate in America to all time. I read that discussion attentively. That bill passed the HoRep by more than a 2/3rds vote. It came to the Senate. The ComDistCol however, saw fit to amend it by restricting the suffrage and renderin it partial; but on motion of the Senfrom Illinois [Mr. Yarns] the bill was recommitted by almost a unanimous vote of this body, for the avowed purpose of making suffrage in the DistCol impartial; and from that day on until the 16th day of March I heard eloquent and able speeches on this floor upon thatquestion, declaring that it was the only security that could be given for the future, an I became satisfied that Congress would do nothing else. I, however, continued tomention the difficulties in the way, the prejudice which existed in 19 northern States thathad the word “ white" in their constitutions. The radical press assailed me; I was assailed in this Chamber and elsewhere as unsound, because I did not see my way clear. I could not be convinced that Congress would stand up to its principles, but I was laughed at for so thinking. While I heard some Senators here contending for this principle, while I heard the voice i of the press contending for suffrage for the blacks, also heard others contending for the punishment of traitors and the disfranchisement of rebels. I was aware how popular that cry was; but I reflected that disfranchisement was the old road to tyranny. I reflected that it was the effort of faction to disfranchise faction that had sunk in oblivion all the republics of antiquity. I reflected that in modern times we had examples of disfranchisement in Ireland and Poland. I reflected that Mexico for the last 50 years had been playing this game of disfrauchisement; that each faction that would come into power would disfranchise the others, and the result was anarchy. I reflected upon the argument that the honorable senators made on this floor to the effect that the evil under which we are now laboring was the disfranchisement of 4 million blacks; that the experiment of disfranchisement in the South had nearly ruined the country, and brought on the recent war; that the cause of that war was the violation of the great principle of enfrancbise ment; and I shuddered at the idea of addin fuel to this fire, adding to the disfranchise blacks 7 million disfranchised whites. I believed that what we wanted was amnesty and suffrage. I believed that we wanted amnesty for the rebels, suffrage for the blacks. I believed that we wanted to turn our attention to the principles of de mocracy, to at faith in the people. I saw no other roadpout of this difficulty, and finally arriving at the conclusion that Congress was in earnest, I introduced a resolution proclaiming universal amnesty and impartial suffrage. I repeat, I came to the conclusion that what the country wanted was amnesty to the rebels and an extension, not a limitation, of the suffrage; that all our ills had grown out of the fact that we had deprived 4 million blacks of their civil and political liberty, and that violation of the democratic principle had brought on this rebellion, and cause all the trouble we have had. Iknow you say these men are rebels and should be punished. That is what was said in Mexico. hat is what was said among the factions in Rome. It is the same argument that they used at the time they murdered the Catiline conspirators. Cato used the same argument, and in a few years afterward the same argument was used and drove him from Rome and made Caesarimperial. This argument that you use to disfranchise men leads to despotism, and it is a dangerous argument. It has been for insubordination, for treason, that the majority of mankind have been disfranchised; and you cannot show an instance on record where any good result has come from disfranchisement. On the other hand we have some glorious examples of the beneficial results of a contrar policy. Scot land was enfraneliised, Ireland ldisfranchise d; compare the two. compare our own progress with that of Poland. l e have been enfranchise d, Poland disfranchised. We were enabled to throw off the oke when GreatBritain attempted to disfranchise us. We have an example of the evil effects of disfranchisement in our own country. We found that the attempt to disfranchise the negroes, inferior as they are, few in numbers as they are, compared with the rest of our population, shook this great republic from center to circumference, and now threatens its overthrow. However you may heat about the bush, ” I believe on full reflection that if this controversy is ever settled you will come down to the principle of impartial suffrage and universal amnesty, or as near as may be. The mere exclusion of a few leaders from office is immaterial, one way or the other, but you must come down to that principle if you ever have a settlement. Now, what is the policy of Congress on this question? It is not what it appeared to be when Congress met; and I mean to be under stood on this point. I will change every time I see a principle that I have never discovered before, bIut will not change and go backward unless I see a cause and a principle. I say that the position Congress occupies today is not a strong one. We have before us the report of a co umiltee on this subject; a committee that has had great difficulty in agreeing: a committee composed of worthy and leading men in both Houses; a committee whose report is regarded by the country as extremely important, as reiiectin the sentiments of this ody a report which I do not now repose to discuss, but which, if adopted, will become a policy. But, before we undertake war with others, let us organize and agree among ourselves and examine this report, and lay down the rules that shall govern us. I will look at that report for a moment, because I think it is important. The 1st section of the coustitutional amendment reported by the committee, if it stood alone, would grant universal civil and political rights, if it means anything. I think, however, that that was not the intention. If that was not the intention, it adds nothing to the Constitution. It is evident that such was not the intention, because the 2nd section provides for a case wherein the States deny the suffrage. It admits that that is a part of the programme, that they may deny suffrage. The 2nd section, which is regarded as so all important, is a provision that has been discusSed in its substantial features in this body for weeks, and has finally been voted down. If in making these constitutional amendments we are to be the judges, as we are from necessity, in our own case because we cannot, until these guarantees are fixed, allow the South to come back, and we mustjudge for them and ourselves I say then in examining the amendments, I want to judge impartially. I say this provision is not impar tia. Ifa move in that direction is to be made changing the basis of representation, we should change it from numbers to voters and not in vent an unfair proposition as this is. Bein a iudge in my own case, I want to judge fair y. his section provides, byits practical operation, for excludin from the basis of representation the non-voting population of the South and includin the non-voting population of the North. he non-voting population of the South, according to the contemplation of this amendment, are the blacks. They will be excluded because they are native born. The nonvoting oulation of the North are aliens, and they in l e included because they are not citizens. I say, therefore, that this provision is unfair, and it will be regarded as unfair in its operation. If you are going to make a change in the basis of representation change it to voters, which I have a ways contended for. But I say, furthermore. that I do not believe there is an necessity for this change. I believe that i we plant ourselves on the original principle of democracy, that all the people shall be trusted to vote, we will find no necessity for these expedients. I hope that before this session closes we shall arrive at some conclusion of that kind. I am opposed to wasting our stren th now in a war With the President until we have s cut our (power upon these amendments an attempte to agree and have a firm foundation. lle can do no harm until that is done; and when we have planted our selves on the broad principles of democracv and equal rights to all men, we can stand forth bold and strong; our principles will fight our battles for us; but until we have a platform of pgiuciples upon which we can stand, it seems me idle to fight the President. The 3rd section submits a proposition to the southern States to vote for their oWn disfranchisement. I say that when they vote for their own disfranchisement they are no longer entitled to freedom, and it should be the work of the U.S. to provide a penal colony for them and send them there. If they will vote for their own disfranchisement, they are less than slaves. I propose, to call upon them for the enfrauchisement. of all men, but I never will submit to the proposition to call upon the South to vote for their disfranchise ment. "It may be inferred by this time that I am opposed to some of the provisions of this plan. q shall not be very enthusiastic in advocatin apro vision of {his kind in our plan, but do believe that discussion and time will bring us a good plan, and then let us commence our war on all who oppose our principles; but let us organize 1st. he 4th section is a good one. It repudiates the confederate debt and all claims for damages for the emancipation of slaves. That is all right. Then it is provided that these amendments shall have been adopted by 3/4ths of all the States before an one of the southern States shall be admitte. You are not calling upon them to act individually. Their action Will do them no good. It seems to me, as it stands, with a revision calling upon the South to vote to disfranchise themselves and making it impossible for them to get in unless they will consent to their disfranchisement, and postpone their admission until 3/4ths of the States adopt these amendments, it is not a very gpod lan. While I do not fully approve of the residents plan I freely say that I think the Presidents plan is a better one than the plan of the committee. I believe that we can get a better plan than either. I do not believe this report reflects the sentiment of any member of the committee. I believe it is a compromise of contending forces and conflicting opinions. They have gotten wearied of the subject. I believe if we at it into Congress and discuss it we shall develop something from this plan which will be more satisfactory. I do not believe any gentleman on that committee will say he favors that entire plan, but he will say, “I submitted to it in orderto get a report." As it stands thus, let us pompoue any outside issue; let us direct our attention to the work of reconstruction legitimately, and it seems to me fruits may come of it. We certainly never will agree u. on a plan if we commence warring upon the resident without a plan, distract our forces, and reduce our majority requisite.to pass the plan when agreed upon; and consequentlyl ope that this amendment will be withdrawn and postponed until we know whether the President agrees with us or whether we differ from him. I did not intend to be drawn into a prema ture discussion of thisquestion, and perhaps I have anticipated too ar the discussion that must nocessaril arise upon the report of the commitlee.I0not intend to despair of get ting a good proposition submitted to the country. I still have the ntmosthope. I shall still do all I can to secure that end. If we can form none that is feasible, then I shall do all I can to prevent any special war being made upon the President, because if we have failed he has done no more, and we have no right to comlain. I want to be distinctl understood that shall not vote to destroy what has been accomplished by the President until a betterion of reconstruction has been agreed upon by on gress; and if he can use his patronage in aid of his policy let him do it, for unless we have a plan and a policy to vindicate we will have no use for atronuge.