Mr. DIXON. Before I conclude I shall state what I understand to be that policy. If the Senator will permit me I will state it in that part of my remarks to which I have in my own mind assigned it. Now. sir, I may be wrong; I think I may say that over confidence in my own judgment is not among my faults; but I believe, as religiously and sincerely as I ever believed in any doctrine, that the on] mode of saving this country from the perils at now surround it is that mode which the POTUS is in clined to follow. Believing that, I am willing, for the sake of supportin that policy, to dro all questions of detail. I will not differ wi him upon questions of detail. ifI think that by so doing I shall impairhis influence in the great work in which I believe he is engaged. The Senfrom Ohio has asked me what is the Presidents policy. I have not yet come to that point; but I desire to say that with re gardto myself upon this subject I oceup no new ground. It is said y some that there are those who are following the President, who desire to court executive favor. It is hard to believe that there is any Senator here who would give up his own convictions of duty for the sake of executive smiles. I trust I should not do it. But, sir, I had the honor more than 3 gears 21510, of taking in the Senate of the U.S. e same position which I now occupy; for some reason, I know not what, I antincipatd this discussion. I supposed when our rmy was before Richmond in 1862 that in a very short time Richmond would fall, and the con— federaey would fall with it. It was only a question of time. What I thoughtwould take lliree weeks took 3 years; but, sir, the fall of Richmond and the fall of the confederacy came and with it has come the question which I thought then would come in a very short time. I took the liberty to ofier in the Senate a resolution which I will read. Of course I do not quote it, nor anything I said on that occasion, as having the slightest authority, but I quote it to justify and defend myself before my constitucuts and before this body, and to show that the position which I now take was not taken for this occasion and because the POTUS happened to take it. but because I believed it to be right, and for that reason I now sustain it. I offered the following reso Illlsllgll a few days previous to the 25th of June, "62.: allegReednolved.That all actsor ordinancesofseccssion to have beenadopted by any Legislature or convention of the people of any State are. as to the Federal Uchniaocnt.sambsaoyluatnedlydnousllubanndetvtohied;inadnivd1 dthuaatl actors therein to forfeitures an. penalties. they do not in any degreeaffect the relations of the States. wherein they purport to have been adopted. to the Government of the U.S. but are. as to such Government. actsof rebellion. insurrection, and hostility on the part of the individuals engaged therein or giving assent thereto: and that such States are. notwithstandinu such acts and ordinances. members of the Federal Union and as such are subject to all the obligations and duties imposed upon them in the constitution of the U.S.: and the loyafcit iptreimvilse of such States quanreraennttieitdleod reconfirmed rights and That resolution was offered by me, and while it was under consideration I took occasion on the 25th of June, 1862, to make some remarks upon it. I will read very briefly from those remarks; and I desire to apologize to the Senate for reading what I then said. of coursc, I do not read it as authority, but as a defense of my own action now. Isaid: “ and here I wish to say that. although the importance of the subject would have justified me in so domg. I have not initiated this discussion. The res olution which I offeredin the Senate.declaring. as I nbaethieovne it dope.truths of immenseimportance to the at this crisis. was not offered by me until the Senator Irom Massachusetts[Mr. Scum ml had proposed a series of resolutions declaring an opposite octrmc. which I ponsider fatal to our form of Government. Destructive of our Federal system and utterly lncompahblowith a restoration of harmonious relations between the States in which the rebellion now prevails and the U.S. " I attempted by such reasoning as Icould command and such illustrations as I could offer to show that my resolution was correct in principle; and, among other things, I made this re mark: "Let us seewhether. oven in point of fact. this in truc. Take the caseof Tennessee. She has attempted to passan ordinance of soccssion.which has beenfollowed by open rebellion and armed resistance to the General Government. For along period no loynleit— iren could live in peace in that State. Those who held to their nllociance to the General Government were banished. The family of one distin uished pn, tbroiodty. a citizen of Tennessee and a momber of t iis weredriven from their home and he was himself enled." He is now POTUS "All that was required for the complete dismemberment of Tennesseo from the Union had taken place in that State; and if it wero possible for any State. by her own not or the actsof or people. tocensoto be astate in the Union. Tennessee ceased to be such. Yet. how did the Senate treat the fact? No matter what may be the law. the fact. it is said is the test of the true condition of the State: and what was the fact in the opinion of the Senate? Every day the name of AndrewJohnson was called b our Sorrotory and as a member of the Senate of the U.S. he answered to his name as a Senfrom Tennessee. Was he a Senator? Was he as such on titled to his seat? Was Tennesseeentitled to berep presented in the Senate? Ifso. was she not a State in the union notwithstanding thoprevalcntrebollion by which she was overrun and devastated?" It may be said in reply to that, that Mr. Johnson, then a Senator here, being once a Senatorwas always a Senator. That is not so. If Tennessee had becomen portion of a foreign country, aportion of greatBritaiu, for instance, and was engaged in war with us, would she be represented in this body? Should we not have excluded him? Have we not the power of self defense? I beg Senators to tell me if that is so, whether every State among the seceding States could not have held its representation in this body. because a man once a Senator is always a Senator? Would the Senate have admitted the right? Not for a moment. They would have said self defense requires us to exclude a Senator in such a case. I made the same supposition with regard to Virginia. Imade the snpposition of a more extreme case: that Messrs. Hammond and Chesnut, then Senators here from SCarolina, had thought it their duty to remain here in spite of the act of secession passed by that State; and I asked the Senate if they could not have remained here; and furthermore, I asked the Senate if it was not their duty to remain and if every 10 al citizen of SCarolina had not a right to emand of them to remain in this body as Senators from SCarolina, althou h" 9 10ths of their people were engaged in rebellion; and there was no Senator here at that time prepared to say that my position was not correct. I of course do not say that that was conclusive. The subject then was not fully considered. But, sir, on that very day a de bate sprang u, and the subject was thoroughly discussed. e Senfrom Michigan [Mr. HOWARD] and the Senfrom Ohio [Mr. WADE] both s oke on the subject; and the position which Itook, although it excited some doubt in their minds, excited no horror. I was not looked upon as a heretic because I took this position. It was considered that there was some doubt with regard to it. The Senfrom Michi u said he thought there was a dif liculty, an rather intimated that he differed from me; but he did not take the ground that my position was either heretical or unpatriotic. Throughout the country at that time, wherever this position was noticed, the loyal press of the country, especiall in my own State, defended that resolution. 4very newspaper in the State declared it to be the true doctrine; and the legislature of the State, then in session, adopted, think, resolutions of a similar character. I trust I shall be pardoned for having thus alluded to remarksof my own. I went on further in that speech and attempted to show what I believed to be the true policy and the true theory on the subject. Of course I shall not weary the Senate with reading what even then when it was freshly said was not perhaps wor thy of attracting much attention. That was the position that I then took; and am I now, when the POTUS takes the same position, to turn iipon him? Am I to say that he is wrong? Am I to be denounced because I hold to the same position now which I then held, notwithstanding the POTUS occupies it? I believed then that the doctrine was correct. It has been fully argued since; able speeches have been made upon it; immense talent in this body and in the other House has been exhausted upon this subject; and yetI have never been able to see that my position then taken has been controverted. I believe it to be correct. I thought it right then; I think it right now. If I am wrong now. I was wrong then, and have been utterly and entirely wrong ever since. Under this state of things, a bill was before us establishing a Freedmens Bureau. As I said, I voted for it, not without doubt, not without hesitation; and I had occasion for reasons I have given to change my vote; and when the Presidents veto came in I voted to sustain the veto and against the bill. I thought the bill most decidedly objectionable. ldesire to refer to a few remarks made by the Senfrom Illinois [Mr. Tnunmnm] in his defense of the bill against the veto, and for a reason which I shall soon state, I shall not, have occasion to dwell long on thatportion of the subject, nor upon the remarks of the Senfrom Illinois. Iwill refer to only one or 2 of the points made by him. He said that the Presidents objection that the bill established the Freedmens Bureau as a part of the permanent legislation of the Government was not correct, that it was not a per manent act; and what reason did the Senator ive for saying thatit was not a permanent act? *Ie said it could be repealed; that the not pro— vided that it should continue in operation until by law it was provided otherwise. Is not that the case with every law? Can you make a per manent act in this Government? Is it possibleto pass an act that cannot be repealed? Suppose you had said in that bill that it should continue in force for 50 years, would it have been permanent in consequence of that ? Would not the next Congress have the power to repeal it? It was as permanent as any law enacted by the U.S. can possibly be made. There should have been a limitation of time in it, and in the 1st Freedmens Bureau billthere was such a limitation. It was limited to one year after the commencement of peace. In this bill there was no limitation; it was to continue in force until repealed, and therefore was as permanent as it was possible for the Congress of the U.S., by any legislation, to make any act whatever. The Senator then said that the Presidents objection to militaryjurisdiction was not a good objection, because the President had been up to this time exercising the same urisdietion. Does it follow that because the POTUS has exercised military jurisdiction up to this time, therefore in a permanent not of legislation on should authorize him to do that for an intfefinite period? That was the point that the President made: this is a permanent net; you authorize permanent militaryjurisdiction in civil cases; and because I exercised it last week, shall I be empowered to exercise it next year? I think there was a vast difference between the 2 cases. Then the Senator alluded to the statement of the President that this was a bill for the advantage ofblack men, rather than ofwhite men. I desire to say that if that were the case it is not the slightest objection to my mind. I think it was made for black men in point of fact, and because it was made for black men was no objection to me. I am not one of those who could ever understand why because a man is called conservative he should hate the colored population, or why because he supported the principles of this Government he. should have an aversion or prejudice toward that population. If there are those who have that feeling, I am thankful that I am free from it. It was no objection to my mind that the bill was intended for the benefit of black men. The fact cannot be denied that it was so intended. Was it not called a Freedmens Btfreau? Are white men freedmen? Was it not to feed and support the wards of the nation? Are white men wards of the nation? I voted for it with that understanding that it was for the benefit of black men; and I am ready now, by my vote here and elsewhere, and so are my constituents, to do anything, as much as any other people will do, to pay their money as freely and exert themselves as earnestly for the benefit of black men as for the benefit of white men. I place them on the same ground. I know no distinction in my feelings, in my sympathies, in my charities, between black men and white men. I have no preferences in that respect. There may be subjects on which I have preferences, but in the matter of kindness, of doin them a favor, of saving them from suffering, should never ask whether the suffering man was a black man or a white man. It is enough for me to know that he is a man. But, sir, I will not follow the Senfrom Illinois further, and for a reason which I shall now proceed to give. His speech was one of great ability, and we had the points that he made nrivenat full length in the papers the next day. Clio gave 16 reasons or opposing the Presidents veto and supporting his bill. ut, sir, I am not called upon to answer those reasons; the Senfrom Maine [Mr. FESSEN DEX] has relieved me of that labor; answered them for me. What did the honorable Senator say here in his place? I will quote his exact language. He said: " I will say in regardto that messagethat I had no very particular attachmentto the bill which wasthus vetoed.". Neither had I. I felt very much as he did. The Senator continued, as tollows: I " In someparticulars it did not meetmyapproval. think some of thereiisons which the Presidentnives for not approving it aro such as would comincnd themselves to public consideration. It is a bill upon the provisions of which there might be a very consider able difference of opinion, I yielded, however,the objections I had and one of them wasvorymuch like that stated by my honorable friendfrom WestVirginia [Mia Wittsv] to the 6th section of the bill, ecuuscI thought. on consideration. that the power did exist and it was especially necessaryto exercise it and the bill therefore received my vote. If the President had confined him solfin theobjectionswhich he statedto a criticism of the bill itself. it is verypossible that I might have been quite willing to waive my own feelingsand opinions in regardto the bill as it passed and tosustain his veto." I think it was perhaps a misfortune to the ublic that the President, in view of that dec aration, did not stop at the point where the Senfrom Maine was satisfied with the veto. I could almost wish that the President had not given that last reason after having given 15 good reasons which the Senfrom Illinois attempted to answer and with which the SenfromMaine was satisfied. What moral sower would have been added to the Presi ents position and the position of those of us who voted to sustain the President if the dis tinguished Senfrom Maine had voted with us. I could wish that the President had ceased when he had given 15 good reasons for rejecting this bill and had not given that additional reason which does not satisfy the mind of the Senfrom Maine. It is not for me to comment on the action of any Senator in this body, but I may say that it struck me as somewhat remarkable that the Senator, findin a bad bill here and a veto sustained by goo reasons, should refuse to sustain the veto and impress his condemnation upon the bill because one had reason was given for its disapproval by the Executive. Sir, if we all acted on that principle, I do not know what would be the result. have voted for many measures for, which good speeches have been made and for which some bad ones have been made, fer which some good reasons and for which some unsatisfactor reasons have been offered. I never felt that was justified in voting against a bill because some of the reasons given for it were unsatisfactory. But the Senator says, and I wish to do him no injustice, that he voted for the bill and against the veto because the principle involved in the bad reason was such that his vote would seem to sustain the principle; and he went on to say that in his judgment no Senator could vote otherwise than he did with self respect. Perhaps if we had thought as he did, we would d have done so. Fortunately, we did not think i so. We did not consider a principle involved 1 in it, and therefore Ifor one did not violate my self respect by voting for a measure which the Senator himself declared very objection able, and which might have received his neg ative vote if onc reason had not been given which was unsatisfactory to his mind. But the Senator says that reason involved a principle. I confess I have not yet been able to see that the principle which he said was involved in that reason was really involved in it. The Senator says in the 1st place that the President gave this as a reason for the veto, and when that was denied by the Senfrom Wisconsin, [Mr. DoorirrLs] the Senfrom Mairie with some degree, as I thou ht, of severity insisted upon his assertion. rue it was a reason. It was stated as a grave objection to the bill; but does not the Senators own experience show him that a Senator may have grave objections to a bill and still vote for it? It is possible that the POTUS notwithstanding this grave objection to the bill, might have sent it back with his signa ture but for the other reasons which he gives us, and which the Senator himself is not prepared to so. are not good and sufficient. I think, therefore that it does not follow that the President would have vetoed this bill in consequence of the last reason given by him. But suppose he had; so pose that ha been sufficient in his mind. he Senator goes on to say that the President takes the ground that not only that. bill must be vetoed, but every other bill relating to the States formerly in rebellion, if that doctrine is correct. I think this inference follows still less than the other. It does not follow in my mind at all. In point of fact what has the President done? He has already signed one bill at least—and I do not know but on inquiry at the Secretarys table I should find more, relating wholly to the southern States. notwithstanding they are not represented—and that was the bil for paying the expenses of this ver JtCommee. 1 he Senator says that the President takes the ground that taxation and representation must go to other, and therefore e infers that the President believes you cannot tax those States unless they are represented. Sir, the Presi dent takes no such ground. He knows full well that taxation must exist. The Constitution of the U.S. provides that duties upon imports shall be the same in all parts of the country. We must therefore have taxation. The POTUS in one of his proclamations extended the internalrevenue system over the whole South. Taxation exists there, therefore, by his own act; ind yet the Senator says that the President claims that taxation cannot exist unless representation also exists. What the President said was, not that taxation should cease, but that representation should begin. He is not arguing against taxation, but for representation; an he says that inasmuch as we must tax these States, they ought, in a manner which I shall soon indicate, to be represented. I think, therefore. that those Senators who voted to sustain the Presidents veto and against the bill, may feel that they have not violated their self respect, as the Senator intimated. They did nott ink that it involved the principle which he saw in it. Now, sir, we have the objections which the Senfrom Illinois made to this veto, 15 in number, 14 of which relate to the mere criticism of the bill made by the President, and those objections the Senfrom Maine, and by his declaration that possibly he might have voted to sustain the veto if this last had been omitted, adjudges not sufficient to influence the action of the Senate. I therefore need not answer them further. He has answered them for me. But the Senfrom Maine says that the President in the last reason iveu by him for the veto of the bill denies the right of congress to judge as to the entire question of representation on the part of the President. . He said that this was an assump When the Senfrom Wisconsin intimated that there was no such assumption, the Senfrom Maine, not being so deeply impressed by his own language as those who hear him, denied that he had used the word. He will find on reference to his reported speech that he took the ground stated y the Senfrom Wisconsinand used the language cited by him.