Mr. RAYMOND. Mr. Speaker, I took oc casion at an early stage of the session, while making some remarks on the general subject of restoration, to say that, in my judgment, the JtCommee to which it had been referred, ought to lay the whole of their plan upon our tables before asking us to act upon an of its specific arts. Icougratulate myself, sir, that, a thong when that made the demand was received with anything but favor, the committee now concede its justice by complying with it. It seemed to me then, as it seems to the committee now, that when a proposition embracine r several branches more or less interde ndent and all essential to the object sought to ll: attained, justice and fair dealing required that Congress should have possession of the whole case before being required to act upon any of its parts. We may see the result of a different course in the recent experience of the British House of Commons. That House was called on to consider a scheme of arliament ary reform, consisting of 2 branc cs, one an extension of the suffrage, and the other a ranortionment of representation, or, as they sty c it, a redistribution of seats. The ministry submitted its programme for the 1st but withheld the secon. Thercu n a portion of the ministerial party demoned to see the whole plan before acting upon part of it. The ministry refused to comply, and the result of their refusal was that, although they commenced the session with a majority of 60, they carried the bill on its 2nd reading by the meager majority of 5, in a House of over 600 members. I am glad to see that the reconstruction committee does not imitate the obstinacy of the British ministry. After long delay and several attempts to carry single parts of its proposition, it now submits the whole of the plan by which it proposes to restore the Union. I must say that I see nothing in the report which required any such delay, nothing which depends or its validity or force upon the evidence which, with such protracted pain, the committee has spent 5 months in collecting and it is for tunate for us that this is so, for Congress is not yet in possession of any considerable portion of the testimony. It has not yet been printed and laid upon our tables to guide our action. But, sir, without dwelling further upon these preliminary matters, I will proceed to state the nature of the report which has thus been made. The programme of reconstruction reported by the committee consists of 3 parts: 1st, a series of 5 constitutional amendments, upon as many different subjects, each distinct from the other; and then 2 bills, one providing for the admission into Congress of representatives from the States lately in rebellion upon certain conditions, and the other excluding from Federal offices for all time to come certain classes of persons who have been engaged in that rebellion. The House has ordered that these 3 proilwlositious shall be taken up in succession, and the proposed amendments to the Constitution are the only topics which are properly before us for our action now. I concur fully in the suggestion of the POTUS, that it would be wise, when acting upon amendments to the Constitution, that all the States to be affected by them should be represented in the debate. I do not understand him to hold, [certainly do not hold myself, that the presence of them all is essen tial to the validity of the action we may take; and inasmuch as they are to be submitted, if adopted by us, to all the States of the Union for their ratification, and as the assent of 3/4ths of all those States will be required to make them valid as parts of the Constitution, I am quite willing to take action upon them here even in the absence of those States which are as yet without representation and now, sir, with regard to those amendments, 5 in form, but only 4 in substance, I have this to say: that, with one exception, they are such as commend themselves to my approval. The principle which secures an e at of rights among all the citizens of the had a somewhat curious history. It was 1st embodied in a proposition introduced by the distin uished Gentfrom Ohio, [Mr. Bisonsnffin the form of an amendment to the Constitution, giving to Congress power to secure an absolute nality of civil rights in every State of the?nion. It was discussed somewhat in that om, but, encountering considerable opposition from both sides of the House, it was finally postponed, and is still ending. Next it came before us in the form of a bill, by which Congress proposed to exercise precisely the powers which that amendment was intended to confer, and to provide for enforcing against State tribunals the prohibitions against unequal legislation. I regarded it as very doubtful, to say the least, whether Congress, under the existing Constitution, had any power to enact such a aw; and I thought, and still think, that very many members who voted for the bill also doubted the power of Congress to pass it, because they voted for the amendment by which that power was to be conferred. At all events, acting for myself and upon my own conviction on this subject, I did not vote for the bill when itwas 1st passed, and when it came back to us from the President with his objections 1 voted against it and now, although that bill became a law and is now upon our statute book, it is again proposed so to amend the Constitution as to conor upon Congress the power to pass it. Now, sir, I have at all times declared myself heartily in favor of the main object which that bill was intended to secure. Iwas in favor of securing an equality of rights to all citizens of the U.S., and of all persons within their jurisdiction; all Iasked was thatit should be done by the exorcise of powers conferred upon Congress by the Constitution and so believing, I shall vote very cheerfully for this TIOPOSG amendmenttothe Constitution, which i trust may be ratified by States enough to make it, art of the fundamental law. 1 lhe 2nd amendment which is proposed to the Constitution relates to the basis of Representation. That has also been already before this House for its action, and I have always declared myself in favor of the object it seeks to accomplish. As I remarked on a previous occasion, I do not think the South ought to gain a large increase of political power in the councils of the nation from the act of their having rebelled, as they will do if the basis of representation remains unchanged. But when it was presented before it came in a form which recognized by implication the right, of every State to disfranchise a portion of its citizens on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, and provide that whenever any portion of any race should be thus disfranchised by any State, the whole of that race within that State should be excluded from enumeration in fixing the basis of representation. As the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [“Mifna STEVENS] said yesterday, itprovided that single one of the injured race was excluded from therightofsuffrage, theStateshouldfbrfeit the right to have any of them represented;” and he added that he preferred it on that account. Well, sir, I did not. When it was before, the distinguished Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. Sonsse s] made a very powerful argument against it. He showed that it tened directly to discourage every southern State from preparing its colored population for enfranchise ment; that it deprived them of all inducement for their gradual admission to the right of suffrage, inasmpeh as it exacted Universal suffrage as the only condition upon which they should be counted in the basis of representation at all. I then ht that argument entitled to great weight. have never et heard it answered. 1 he Gentfrom O io converted me to that view of the subject, and although he relinquished or waived it himself, I could not. I voted against a “proposition which seemed to me so unjust and so injurious, not only to the whites of the southern States, but to the colored race itself. Well, sir, that amendment was rejected in the Senate, and the proposition, as embodied in the committees report, comes before us in a very different form. It is now propOsed to base representation upon suffrage, upon the number of voters, instead of upon the aggregate population in every State of the Union and as I believe that to be essentially just, and likel to remedy the unequal representation of which tpresen ted. r complaint is so justly made, I shall give it my vote. The 3rd amendment embodied in this report is of an entirel different character. It provides that until teyear 1870 all persons within the States lately in rebellion who “ vol untaril adhered to the rebellion and gave it aid an comfort” shall be “excluded from the right of votin for members of congress and for electors of President and Vice residem, of the U.S. ” Now, the 1st thing that strikes my attention in this is, that this amendment recognizes these States as States, and as States within the Union. How else, upon what other round, are they authorized to be represente at all? The amendment does not confer upon them any right of representation. It does not confer upon their people any right of voting. It recognizes their right to representation. It recognizes the general right of suffrage as belonging to the people of these States. It simply limits that right thus recoized as existing. It excludes a portion of the people from exercising that right of suffrage which in the absence of such exclusion they would possess. Now, this discards entirely the doctrine that these States are Territories, the doctrine that they are conquered provinces, and that their people are alien enemies, out of the Union and without rights of any kind and so far it has my hearty approbation. But, sir, it proposes to exclude the great body of the people of those States from the exercise of the right of suffrage in regard to Federal officers. The Gentfrom Pennsylvania, [Mr. BRQOMALL] in his veryingenious argument this morning, attempted to show that it would not exclude more than one in 12 of the voters in the southern States. But it seems to me idle to enter into such calculations, which depend on a series of estimates, each one of which cannot be anything more than a wild and random ess. I take it that we all know perfectly wel that the great masses of the southern people “voluntarily adhered to the insurrection; not at the outset, not as being originally in favor of it, but during its progress, sooner or later, they voluntaril gave in their adhesion to it, and gave it ai and comfort. They did not all oin the army. The y did not go into the field, but they did, at different times, fromvarious motives and in various ways, give it aid and comfort. Well, sir, that would exclude the great of the people of those States under this amendment from exercising the right of suffrage. It is proposed to permit those only who did not at any time nor in any way thus adhere to the insurrection to vote for members of Congress and for residential electors. I do not think they won d number more than one 10th of the whole population. But even if they should number one 8th or one 5th they would still constitute but a very small portion of the people to be clothed with the exclusive powers of government. They would still constitutea government oliigarchical and not republican in form. Yesterday the chairman of the JtComReconstruction, [Mr. SrsVENSfl in his forcible remarks introducing this report, took ground against admitting the members elect from Tennessee and Arkansas because they do not represent their constituents. “ DO not tell me, ” said he, “that there are loyal representatives waitin for admission; until their States are loyal ey can have no standing here, for they would merely misrepresent their constituents.” and yet he proposes that we shall allow 1/5th, one 8th, or one 10th, as the case may be, of the people of these southern States to elect members from those States to hold seats upon this floor. Now, would not men thus elected in the most emphatic sense misrepresent their constituents? How can the Gentfrom Pennsylvania favor such a preposition as this, which is certain to secure members who Will not trul represent their States, when he re. fuses mission to the loyal deltion frpm. Tennessee? By what process of reasoning can he reconcile the admission of members in the one case, while he denies it so obsti nately and scornfully in the other? It is true this provision is temporary; but the effect of it while it lasts must be to lant seeds of diso0ntent and dissension in the southern States which will survive by scores ofyears the imme diate cause out of which they grew. The Gentfrom Maine [Mr. Burns] yesterday made what seemed to me to be a very strong point that this disfranchisement of the large bod of the southern people would run counter to the terms of the amnesty proclamation of President Lincoln, which restored all but certain classes to their former rights. I think there is great force in that objection. But however this may be as a point of tech nical construction and I shall not canvass it in that light there is certainly great force in this objection, that this provision would be a departure, a retraction from the assurances given all through this war, by acts and resolutions of Congress and by proclamations of the President. hvery declaration from an Dept of the Governmentconveyed to the South and to the whole country the assurance that the war was waged for the sole purpose of suppressing the rebellion, and that when it was Over all the States would be restored to the Union in full possession of all their rights and on a footing of equality with the other States. I know it may be said that we were there in perploxity and in peril, and that igwas essen tial to the harmony of public sentiment and to the vigorous prosecution of the war that these declarations and pled es should be made. I know, too, how genera is the truth that “ case will retract vows made in pain.” But it is not a pleasing spectacle to see a great nation like this shrinking from the fulfillment of pledges under which it carried on the war, shrinking from the assurances it has given to the whole country, that upon the termination of the war the authority olpthe Constitution and the rights of the States should be restored. We should be at least as jealous of our honor now as we were of our safety then. There is another objection which perhaps may not be entitled to much weight, but is wort consideration. This proposition to exclude the mam of the southern people from voting until 1870exposes those who advocate and press it, it exposes the Union partyto the suspicion, remders that party obnoxious to the charge of seeking to amend the Constitution for the purpose of influencing and controlling the presidential election of 1868. I make no such charge, but I know it will be made. Our vigilant oppo nents will not omit so tempting an opportunity to trace our action to motives of partisanship rather than patriotism and I would not like to be put in a position where I shall be compelled to concede the charge, or where facts can be brought forward that would even seem to sustain it. It is quite true that the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. Srsvsxs] accepted what he took to be asuggestion on in part the other day, that GenlGrant mightbe the candidate of the Union party for the gresidency in 1868, with great alacrity; and the eagerness with which he responded to that suggestion gave me the most comforting assurance that we shall have no dissensions upon that subject when the time shall come. I do not think it necessary, therefore, to insert such an amendment as this in the Constitution in order to secure the election of GenlGrant, if he should be presented as the Union candidate or by the country at large, without regard to party, as is by no means impossible. For wherever you find men who appreciate courage, skill, and patriotism in the fie d, may animity in the hour of victory, and wise mo oration iupolitical councils, there you will find men who will appreciate that illustrious commander as a candidate for any office which the American people may have to bestow. But upon these points I will not dwell. I now come to another objection, which to my mind seems fatal to this amendment. This section seems to me tohave been inserted for the express purpose of preventing the adoption by the southern States of any of the amendments proposed to the Constitution. Iwill not say that this was the motive of the committee in reporting it, but that, I think, is the result which its adoption by Congress will secure. The adoption of all the proposed amendments, this one included, by each of the southern States, is made in the bill reported by the committee a condition essential to their admission to Representation in congress. Now, the amendments are to be adopte by the Legislatures of the several States. The Legislatures are elected by all the people those who have voluntarily adhered to the insurrection as well as those who have not for the Gentfrom Pennsylvania {[Mr. BROOMALL] laid special stress upon the act that the people are still allowed full control of their State governments. These Legislatures, thus elected, are expected to ratify all these amendments, to concede an equality of civil rights, to concede a great reduction of their political power in changing the basis of representation, to concede the repudiation of their debts and the denial of compensation for their slaves; and for what consideration? What do we offer them in return for all these concessions? The right to be represented on this floor, provided they will also consent not to vote for the men who are to represent them! Nay more, that they shall accept as the Representatives whom they thus get the right of having here men elected by a small minority of their people who are suppOsed and conceded to be iostile to them in political sentiment, and against whom they have been waging a bitter warl We offer them, in exchange for all these reniinciations of political power and of mate rial advantage, the privilege of being misreppresented in Congress by men in whose election they had no voice or vote, and with whose past political actionand present political sentiments they have no sympathy whatever. Why, sir, this not only “breaks the word of promise to the hope, ” it does not even “ keep it to the ear.” It is not merely a sham, it isa mockery. The very price by which we seek to induce their assent to these amendments, we snatch away from their hands the moment that assent is secured. Is there any man here who can so far delude himself as to suppose for a moment that the people of the southern States will accede to any such scheme as this? There is not one chance in 10,000 of their doing it. Representation ceases to be of the slightest value to them under such conditions. They will not seek it or ask for it. The will infinitely refer to take the chances of change in the p itical councils of the nation, to await the election of a congress more propitious to their claims. especially under the comforting assurance which the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. Srrzvsxs] gave them some 2 months ago, when he said frankly that “it is of no importance by whom or when or how reconstruction is effected, for in 3 short ears this whole Government will be in the and s of the late rebels and their northern allies.” They will readily wait “ 3 short years” for representation rather than purchase the mockery of it we offer them at such a price. The Gentfrom Ohio, [Mr. SCHENCK] in vindicating the policy of this exclusion of the southern people from the right of suffrage, insisted that it was necessary as a means of discipline; that they are not yet in a properframe of mind to take part in the affairs of government, " that they are at heart still unfriendly and hostile to our authority and institutions; and that we must treat them as parents do unruly children, that we must flog them for their offenses and then exclude them from the family table or shut them up in a closet until they come to a better and more submissive mood. Well, sir, this might answer if the 8 million people with whom we are dealing would consent to be treated as children, and to regard us here in Congress as standing in loco parenfis toward them. They might in that case submit tamely to the chastisement we propose, and possibly profit by it. But they are not children. they are men, men tenacious of their rights, jealous of their position, brave, and proud of their bravery, of hot and rebellious tempers, and not at all likely to be subdued in spirit or won to our love by such discipline as the Gentfrom Ohio proposes to inflict. We have chastised them a ready. We have defeated their hestility against the government and now what remains? They are to be our fellow citizens. They must form part of the people of our country. They are to take part, sooner or later, in our Government unless we intend to diseard the fundamental principle of that Government, the right of the people to govern themselves and we cannot afford to have them, or to make them sullen, discontented, rebellious in temperand in purpose, even if they are submissive in act. We have nothing to do with the sickly sentimentality referred to by the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mia Srsvsxs] yesterday. Our object is not to deal in mercy toward them. We are to deal wisely for their good and for our own. We are to make them friends because we cannot afford to make or to keep them ene mies. How shall we do this best? By what policy can it be best effected? By exclusion, by coercion, by liOstile distrust? Can we coerce friendly feeling on the part of a hostile people? Has it ever been done? I would like the reader of history on this floor to point me to an in stance in the records of any nation where great communiticsonce disaffected have been brought back to friendly relations and feelings of kindly regard by such measures as are here proposed. Hus Ireland been thus nppease d? Has Poland? Has Hungary? Has Venice? Why, sir, if history teaches anything, if any principle is established by the concurrent an nals of all nations and all ages, it is that sentiment cannot be coerced; that opinions, even, cannot be controlled by force; and that with any people fit to be free or to be the country men of men who are free, all such efforts de feat themselves and intensify and perctuate the hostilities sought to be overcome. reland offers us a signal example of this, and I am amazed that members upon this floor can shut their eyes or cIOSe their minds to the lessons which her sad history teaches. England, for her harsh dealings with that unhappy lmd 100s of years ago, is paying the penalty today and will for all time to come. By mistakes in policy precisely such in kind as we are making now, England, 100s of years ago, planted in Ireland the seeds of that disaffection which, in spite of all her attempts to undo the wrong, in spite of abundant legislation in redress of grievances, and for the good of Ireland, from time to time bursts out into keble but bitter insurrection, and which today blooms into that shadowy phenomenon of Fenianism, which terrifies one continent and puzzles and poisons the other. No, sir, this is not the way to deal with disaffected States. I have no sympathy with those in the southern States who have just emerged from rebellion. Never for an instant have I felt or shown the slightest toleration for their crime. From the 1st moment their purpose of rebellion was made apparent until the hour they laid down their arms, within in humble sphere and by the feeble means wthe were all I could command, I have demanded, urged, and waged the most vigorous and determined war that could be made upon them. That war has proved successful. he rebellion has been suppressed. Our mission now is of a different kind and must be fulfilled by agencies of another sort. These, sir, are m objections to the 3rd of these 5 amendments. The other 4 commend themselves to my judgment and will receive my support. INTERNALREVENUE BILL.