Mr. STEWART. I think the Senfrom Wisconsin has made an argument in favor of the legislation, under consideration, but not a very strong argument in favor of his own resolution. e tells us that there is disorganization in the South. We expected it. c tells us that they are proposing legislation which makes an unjust and odious discrimination between the whites and blacks. We were aware of that fact. Wo expected it. But why complain of them for this legislation when we have now by the constitutional amendment the power to legislate on the subject, and when it 18 our duty to do so? We have a bill under consideration which will cure nearly all the evils of which the gentleman complains. It provides that the courts of the U.S shall have jurisdiction of all cases arising under that provision of the constitution which abolishes slavery, and which confers upon Congress the power to carry into execution that article of the constitution. This clearly makes it the duty of Congress to provide for the case and Congress has assumed this duty in other like cases. No case existed before where there were so strong reasons for the action of Congress. The fugitiveslave clause of the constitution was carried into effect by the courts of the U.S. without any provision in the constitution that Congress should legislate on the subject. The constitution simply provided that the States should deliver up fugitives from labor and fugitives from justice, and it was settled that under that clause the courts could take jurisdiction of their delivery when Congress had passed an act for that purpose, and here is a bill simply adopting that machinery and applying it to the case of the freedmen. If there are in the South laws that ree nslave the negro, we are passing laws to abrogate them; we can swce them all out of existence. I do not sn pose t mereis a Senator upon our side of the ease who doubts the power of congress to protect the negroes under the constitutional amendment that has been already adopted. Then, I say, that if we do our duty under that provision, the fact that those States have laws hostile to our institutions is no argument in favor of reducing them to a territorial condition. If we have the complete power to protect loyal men, to execute the laws in favor of freedmen, to abrogate all laws making them slaves or degrading or oppressing them, why not act by doing our duty and passmg laws that shall secure these ends? Then, having done that, what else do we want to accomplish? We all want them to be States as soon as possible. Will it be taking a step forward to destroy, the little of Organization they have accomplished? You say these organizations are hostile to the negro. Very well; suppose they are, they have no power to carry into effect any laws hostile to the negro, because that is taken out of their hands an. but in the power of the General Government. The fact that they are not treating the negro right is no argument in favor of destroying their organizations, inasmuch as We have complete power over them so far as that question is concerned. What is the objectofdestroyin them? If the can do no harm, the Senator as furnishetly no argument for their destruction by showing that they do not protect the negro. What is the remaining argument for their destruction? That they were created without authority of law. SuppOse that to be the fact, still they are organizations gotten up by the people; and if they can be matured into States, why not let them alone? You may say that they send men to Congress who are hostile to the Government of the U.S., rebels, traitors, to represent them. Have we not power to keep such men out? Have we not a test oath that will keep them out? Is it not our duty to exercise aIright of discrimination under this test oath. so as to encourage Union men? Why not discriminate between those who are hostile and those who are loyal? The effect of such a course will be to strengthen your friends in the South; but pass laws making no discrimi nation, treat them all as hostile to the Government, act upon the supposition that we have no friends at the South, and we shall have no friends. We have no more friends there now than we need; they are in a sorry condition; we have very few riends in that country, and they have very little power; but a sweepinglaw that shall treat them all as aliens will never give us more friends. If we can protect the loyal men by the arms of the U.S. legitimately in carrying out the provisions of the constitutional amendment, (because the president has a right to execute the laws, and to call out the forces of the U.S. to execute them if they are resisted) and can at the same time secure the rights of the freedmen, ought we not to be satisfied? Why not so act now that we shall be at liberty in all our future action to discriminate between the loyal and the disloyal? If you destroy the existing organizations entirely and build up new ones of your own, ignoring the fact that there are any loyal men there, when will you have those States back in the Union? I ask this as a practical question. I understand that among those sent here by the southern States to represent them there are some loyal men, at least one or two. There are loyal men there, and they will be encour aged by our admitting the loyal men who have been sent here. You have power to keep (lis 1oyal men ont of these Halls; and why not exercise it? What is the use of tearing down that which has already been done? When you have torn it down, there are not 2 Senators on this floor who a co as to what shall be built up in its place. Ye differ as much among ourselves as to the manner of building up, as any of us do with the President in regard to what he has done. I say, let us not pull down. but let us sustain what we can; let us hold fast to that which is good. To protect the southern loyal men, to protect the freedmen under the authorized power of the constitution is our 1st and paramount duty. Let us do that; let us extend the hand of fellowship to the loyal men whom we may find in the South, and who will help us to sustain the constitution and the Union and to enforce the laws; and then we shall have done something toward a practical restoration; but ifwc continue here as we are, each man presenting daily his own plan no 2 agreeing as to what ought to be done, one pulling down what another tries to build up, it will be very long before the South will be reconstructed to suit us. Now, I am opposed to tearing down; I am in favor of holding fast to what we have that is good. We have been legislating for afew days in the right direction toward reconstruction, and let me say to the Democrats on the other side of the House that I do not think their oppositionto these measures is calculated to advance reconstruction, because it is impossible over to receive into these Halls any man from the South unless they come from States where law and order prevail.