Mr. BLAINE. I wish to call the attention of the House, Mr. Speaker, to the precise na ture of the tending amendment, and for that purpose I Will read it again. It is as follows: and providedfurther, That no part of the moneys appropriated by this or any other act shall beup lied to the pay or subsistenceof any cudet from anystate declared to be in rebellion against the Government of the U.S., appointed after the 1stday of January, 1866.until such State shall have been prostored to its original relations to the Union, under and byvirtue otan actorjoiut resolution of Congress for that casemadeand provided. As the previous question has been demanded I am not allowed to olTer an amendment. If I were permitted to do so, I would offer the following in the nature ofasubstitute for the pend in proposition of the Gentfrom Ohio, [Mr. Sensx exfl Providedfurther, That no part of themonsy hereby appropriated shall beapplied to the pay or support of any cadetshereafter appointed not in conformity with the expressprovisionsotlawregulatingappointmentsof cadetsat that Academy. This proposition is precisely the same ver batim et liferattm that was incor orated in the WestPoint up iropriation bill at the 1st session of the 35th Congress, April, 1864, and was then move, I believe, by the Gentfrom Ohio who now offers the pending amendment. The design at that time was to cure an existin evil which I will briefly explain. The law aut orizing the appointmentofcadets gives one to each congressional district in the U.S., and requires that the cadet shall be an actual resident of the district for which be isappointed. After the late war had been raging some 2 years, and the southern districts were not represented at WestPoint, nominations were made from thenorthern States to fill about 3/4ths of these districts. I hold the Cadet register in my hand, showing that some 38 or 40 northern boys were foisted contrary to law on these southern districts, and are at WestPoint today in virtue of those appointments. It was to stop this method of il egal nomination that the provision I have quoted was inserted in the WestPoint appropriation bill in April, 1864. To day, if the President should fill all the vacancies in the southern States, he would not have over 18 appointments, because the cadets alreu y appointed from the North representing southern districts will not graduate until 1867, and some of them not until 1868. If the pending amendment, therefore, should 4 be defeated, the only cadets the President could appoint in the soutern States would be these 18, together with such proportion as he might choose to assign to that section from the ten at large whom he is empowered to appoint annually. Can we not trust the President with this power? Are we to reflect on him and on the SecyWar by declaring here that we cannot trust them to appoint a single cadet from the southern States? Are we to say to the President, as this amendment does, " If you wish to nominate Governor Brownlows son to WestPoint, you shall not do it; if you wish to nominate John Mine r Bottss son, you shall not do it; you shall not a point the son of an of those patriots of East Tennessee who, in their mountain fnstnesses, struggled and died for the Union." The amendment summarily cuts 08 the power of the president to appoint any lad. however promising and however loyal, to WestPoint, if he be so unfortunate as to have been born and lived in the South. His father may have died for the Union, but the son cannot be recognized by the President of the Union. I am opposed to the amendment, sir: opposed to it root and branch. I regard it as roscriptive, illiberal, and narrow minded. Its ogic can be justified only on the ground taken by tny distinguished friendfrom Pennsylvania, [Mr. Stevens] who holds that the entire population of the 11 southern States are alien enemies. I admit that the amendment is perfectly consistent with that doctrine; and if any gentleman espouses that creed he will find in the pending amendmentalegitimateoutgrowth of his theory. Not believing myself in this extreme dogma, but holding, as I always have, that the man who has been truly loyal to the Government, whether in the North or in the South, is entitled to its protection and its ben efits, I shall vote against the amendment, even ifI stand alone in my opposition?