Mr. FESSENDEN. Iwas somewhatstruck, too, by the argument of the honorable Senfrom Pennsylvania, [Mr. BUCKALEW] That honorable Senator has exhibited since he has been a member of the Senate, for a man of his ability, a remarkable reticence. He said nothing during all the last Congress. He says he supporte the measures for the prosecution of the war. I believe he did supporr. the appropriation bills; but I hardly think that the other measures for the prosecution of the war had his vote. The appropriation bills were not all the measures that were judged necessary. He says be deemed it proper to wait until the minds of men had become calm before he gavehis views to the Senate on these important topics, and he would not have even done it on this oc casion had it not been for the fact that no other gentleman who had spoken had presented the views which struck his mind ascing particularly important. It is a little singular with regard to those views that 8 out of the 16 pages of his speech were devoted to abuse of NewEngland and to showing that NewEng land had too much powerin the Senate and out of the Senate and that it ought to be abridged in some way. I do not see that there was any very great originality in that, for I believe most of the views the Senator presented on that subject have been from time to time presented by others in the same way, and perhags, I might say, with as little effect. He close those remarks by saying (for which I was very much obliged to him) that he did not despise NewEngland. We are ha py to know it. I will say to him that Newinglaud does not des ise him that I am aware of. [Laughter.] am not aware that it is really it ecte in any do ree by the elaborate attack of 8 ages which he delivered against NewEngland on that occasion, and which he thought, were views so important that he could not be justified if he faied to give them utterance. Let us look a little at the ideas which he presents, by way of argument, on this measure. In the 1st place, he said that NewEng land had 12 Senators, and if you took the population of NewEngland and divided it by 12 it would ive one Senator to about 250,000 of population; whereas if you took the central States, the rest States of NewYork, Peunsylvania NewJersey, kc., and coupling them With the West, and taking 18 or 20 of them I think 18 it would require a much larger ratio. Vas that a fair way of making the division I Why select NewEngland? Why not, if you are making a division, couple the eastern States, as the Senator called them, and the middle States together? Their connection is much more natural and much more intimate in business relations and everything else. Why not add to them the State of NewYork and the State of Pennsylvania, and offset those against the great western States? You would find in that case, if you made that division, the ratio would be very much larger. It looked to me very much as if a strong attempt was made to show up NewEngland by itself, and to disconnect it with any other section of the country. Take the last 6. States, including one or 2 of the smaller States, in the list that he gives in his speech, and you will find that the ratio for Senators is very much smaller than it would be even in the 6 NewEngland States coupling them together. Why not offset them against those States? It looked to me very much like a labored attempt, if possible, to throw some stigma upon NewEngland, as if she was holding and trying to retain that which did not properly belong to her. I have never indulged in remarks of that kind since I have been in the Senate. It is a matter of taste, upon which each gentleman must judge for himself. The Senator even went so far as to repeat the old story about the chairmanship of committees, and he pointed to the fact that the great State of Pennsylvania was only permitted to bear niin the hands of his sta wart colleague the inner of the ComPatents. If. were disposed to be ill natured, and say things I did not think, I would say that other considerations might influence the question of chairmanships, and that it would have some relation to men, and if Pennsylvania wanted chairmanships, she must send men here strong enough to hear them up; but I do not think any such thing, and therefore Iwill not say it, especially with regard to my honorable friend, [Mr. Cowsx] who is strong enough to bear up an thing. 0w, sir, this pointing tothings which are more matters of course in this Senate as de veloping power and as exhibiting an inclination to hold and keep power, and to increase it, strikes me, to say tevery least of it, as very much out of place. I do not intend to dwell long upon this subject; but perhaps the most remar able thing of all is the closing art of the speech of the Senfrom Pennsyvania. He said that at one period, when we had only 49 Senators, by a rule of the Senate 25 made a quorum, and that the 12 Senators from NewEngland, with one more. would constitute a majority of a quorum, and that if 2 or 3 more Senators were added to the body 14 would be a majority of a quorum, and he depicted the awful consequences that might result. Onl suppose that on some occasion the 12 euators from NewEngland should get somebody else to vote with them, and there are only 25 present think of it there would be a bill passed by the vote of NewEngland, with one more! and even if we had 2 or 3 more members, and it required 14 to make a majority of a cpliorum on some occasion, the 12 from NewEngland may be present, and if they can get 2 more they wi pass a bill, if everybody else happens to be 21 sent except just enough to make a uuruml This is comlimentary to NewEng and It supposes that lier Senators are always in their seats, always have the same views that is not very evident just now, I think always ready to go together, always aiming at the something, and that other Senators are scattered about and do not at tend to their business, but let everything go by default. Let me say to the honorable Senator that there is no part of this country, no State in this count that has made such large drafts upon NewEngland as the State of Pennsylvania. Her interests are not, to be sure, in all respects identical with those of NewEngland, but they run in the same direction. I NewEngland is protective in its policy, Pennsylvania is muc more so, and a ways has been. Where has she looked always for support except to NewEngland in matters most interflting to her? and if it should happen that on some great question connected with the interest of enuSylvania, the duties upon iron or something of that sort, she should get the 12 votes of NewEngland, and if, with the aid of the honorable Senators vote added to them, a bill should be carried, I think hg would not consider it a very great calamity. This attack upon NewEngland and upon NewEngland policy and upon NewEngland men comes with the most exceeding ill grace from Pennsylvania of all States in the world, and that State is the very la stwhich, if the power we have more or less, is extended here after as it has been heretofore, should seek to diminish it, for she has required it all, called for it all, had it all, enjoyed it all, and this is the sort of payment, I suppose, that we are to expect from her. The SecyState has a favorite story that he tells on all occasions when he gets an opportunity, in the Senate, in public meetings, an at other places, which I think is exceedingly applicable to this supposition of the hou orable Senfrom Pennsylvania in regard to what the 12 Senators from NewEngland might do. It is the old story of the brass oor late with thename of Thompson upon it that Irs. Toodles bought 0? auction. Her hus band asked her slie ha no children “ What did on buy that door plate for with the name of hompson upon it? “Why, my dear, ” she replied, suppose we should have a daughter, and suppose she should grow up, and suppose she should marry a man by the name of Thom son, how very convenient this door plate wou d be.” [Laughter.] I think my honorable friendfrom Pennsylvania must be in some way related to the Toodles family. I propose to go no further with reference to these arguments, if they may be called arguments. lhe are an appeal to prejudice; they are an attempt to get up on this great question a feelin which ought not to exist; and whatever in ueuce they may have in the country, (and the honorable Senators know vastly better than I do what sort ofarguments their constitquents most relish and are most likel to in fluence their judgmeuts) I take it they will have very little effect here. Mr. President, I may say it is well that I should say it that I have no expectation that this proposed amendment of the Constitution will be adopted. I know, to use a common expression, that noses have been counted. I know that enough has been found to prevent the necessary majority of 2/3rds, if we may trust to what gentlemen have said outside a what they have made a matter ofboast. It may be so; I think it likely it is so; but still I know very well that a very decided majority of this Senate is in favor of the amendment; and while I stand with nearly all those friends With which I have been so proud to act in relation to the matter, I do not feel disposed to abandon the support of it, but to leave it to take its fate, according to the judgments of men. I said in the beginning that the committee were influenced by the desire to do something, to do something practical, to do something which in the result would be attended with good. I know that that desire was a sincere one. I know that they canvassed carefully all the propositions before them, and the came to the conclusion that an amendment O this kind if it could be adopted would be beneficial, and that its chance of adoptionwas much better than that of any other at had been presented to them. It was introduced into the HoRep, and as Istated on a former occasion, after a large discussion, was adopted by a vote of more than 2/3rds of that House, a body which, it has been said, is composed of men not inferior to any HoRep that has ever been known before in this place. It came to the Senate, and it has here in the Senate a large and a decided majority of friends. Under these circumstances I cannot abandou it, and I cannot permit certain arguments used with reference to it, which I believe to be unfounded in fact and in law, to go out unanswered before the people; and I can still less permit what IDeannot but regard as most gross imputations not only upon the committee who recommend it, but upon all who support it, to pass without some words of comment. The honorable Senfrom Massachusetts, [Mr. SUMNER] in the commencement of his speech, undertook to tell us that there were 2 kinds of parliamentary debate: one was a reply to a previous speaker with personality of criticism or manner; the other was adiscusson of principle, to which he said he should confine himself. I am unable to perceive that there is any impropriety in answering a previous speaker in parliamentary debate. I have been laborin under the delusion all my life that the properind of parliamentary debate was to meet things as they came; if you had a proposition to efend, defend it; if you differed with the previous speaker in his views, answer him on the spot, have a discussion, sift the matter from be inning to end, and see where the truth lies. whatis to be understood by “personality of criticism" I do not exactly now. If you criticise the matter or the remedy, I do not crceive but that you are followings. very legitimate and proper course. If you criticise the individual in relation to other matters, that is another thing. I do not know that here anybody is ever guilty of it. What is iinderstoo by personality of manner, I am very much at a loss to conceive. We have a differeutninnner. It is very fortunate that we are not all exactly the same, or we should be it very dull assembly. Variety is said to be charming, and I do not know but it ischarming in oratory, if there is any oratory among us, as in anything else. I should hate to bejudged by my manner ecauso it has not all the suavity and elegance of that of some other gentlemen. I do the best I can, and if I do not equal in manner the Senfrom Massachusetts, or any other Senator, it is my misfortune, and I ought not to be charged ob account ofany deficiency of that sort. I say, then, that while I entertain my pltfient opinions I shall regard it as true that I have I right, standing here, to criticise a previous speaker; ifhe attacks my propositions, to examine his arguments; if he offers a substitute, to examine that substitute and see what there is in it or of it; and so long as I do that in respectful language and in parliamentary style, cannot conceive that any Senator has aright to complain of me for so doing. If his speech, or whatever it may be, will not bear criticism, that is not my fan t; and if I fail in my criti cism it is my misfortune. I think we are a little too sensitive n on this subject. Criti cim upon a speech oes not necessarily imply imfriendliness; it is not personality. I know it has been called so, and some exception has been taken to it, and some little nervousness has been exhibited in regard to it. But, sir, a speech made by any Senator here is fair game, especially to one who is opposed to its principles or its assumptions; and ifa Senator commenting upon it deals with it fairly and honestly and does not misrepresent it, he has a right to do it, and it is his duty to do it. That is not the only distinction which exists in parliamentary debate in this country. There are 2 kinds of debate here, if they may be called debate. One kind is a long, labored, written, printed oration, prepared carefully in the study, elaborated, proof corrected, all the thunderbolts forged, everything putinto proper sha e, and then read to the Senate. Another kingis where a Senator, in unpremeditated language and to the best of his power, as occasion serves him, takes up the subject and discusses it without the advantage of that previous stud and examination. his not for me to say which of these is the best, which is the most parliamentary. Ionly know I have been told; I never was there thatin the Parliament of England, and in France in their Parliament, no man is ever permitted to read a speech. He is scraped down, coughed down, and put down at once.