Mr. KOONTZ. Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to examine in detail the bill now under discussion, but will occupy a portion of the time allotted me in discussing the general principles involved therein. When the late civilWar closed with the overthrow of the military power of the southern confederacy the 1st questions that were presented to the consideration of the loyal people of the country were, what penalties shall be imposed upon the persons who brought so “direful a calamity upon the nation? and what shall be done to restore civil governments to those communities, and once more bring them into harmonious action with the General Government? For over 4 years the nation had engaged in a desperate struggle for its life. Ten States had by solemn legislative enactment separated the ties that bound them to the Union, organized a separate government, seized the forts, arsenals, navy yards, mints, customhouses, and other property of the Government, raised large ar mies and waged one of the fiercest wars known in history, to establish their independence. After an immense expenditure of and treasure the whole fabric of treason fell crum bling to the earth, and the great fact established thereby was the ability of the nation to maintain itself against domestic foes. A stern sense of justice demanded that some punishment should be inflicted upon the guilty criminals who had lighted the fires of civilWar, desolated so large a portion of our fair land, and robed the country in mourning for the precious dead whose lives had been sacri ficed through their mad ambition. At the same time a proper regard for the future peace and security of the country required that there should be some conditions imposed upon them before they could again be permitted to participate in the privileges pertaining to the true and loyal o of the country. These things were looked for by the friends of the Government, not through a spirit of hatred or revenge toward the rebels, but because they were consistent with not only the fundamental law of the land but with that great principle of self preservation which lies at the foundation of all Governments, and belongs to nations as well as to individuals. The crime of treason is defined by the Constitution as follows: on“lTyreason against the U.S shall consist in levying war against them, or, in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” Article 3, section 3. And the punishment provided therefor is, by act of Congress, 30th April, 1790, as follows: “If any person owing allegiance to the U.S.A shall levy war against them, or shall adhere to comfort, their enemies, giving them aid and within the U.S or elsewhere, and shall be thereof convicted, on confession in court, open or on the testimony of 2 witnesses to the same overt, act of the treason whereof he or they shall stand indicted, such person, or persons shall be adjudged guilty of treason against the U.S., and shall suffer death.” It requires no argument here to prove that they were guilty of this monstrous crime. That they waged a fierce and relentless war against the U.S. we have but to look at the numberless widows and orphans, who remind us that 300,000 precious lives were lost to resist their attacks upon the government; and to remember that a national debt of $3,000,000,000, which will tax the energies of our people for generations to come, was contracted to overthrow the work of treason. Man ifestly guilty, therefore, of this high crime it would have only been in accordance with the dictates of justice had they suffered its penalty. The principle that there must be punishment for crime pervades both human and divinelaw, and as they were guilty of the very highest crime known to the law, as well as of all the crimes that follow in the train of civilWar, it was but a reasonable expectation on the part of the loyal people that they should expiate their crimes ". suffering the penalties of the law. I do not claim, nor do I believe it to be the sense of the people, that these plain provisions of the low oil. have been enforced upon the great mass who were deluded into the ranks of treason; but I do most sincerely believe it to be the deliberate judgment of the great body of the American people that the guilty leaders ought to have suffered condign oInstead, however, of carrying out is previous threats that “traitors must be punished, ” the accidental occupant of the White House showers upon them executive clemency and instead of “treason being made odious' it basks in the smiles of presidential favor. Think of Alexander H. Stephens, the VEEP of the rebel confederacy, with the pardon of AndrewJohnson in one hand and a commission from the State of Georgia in the other, waiting for “my policy” to be carried out to take his seat as a Senator in the Senate of the U.S., and you have a striking illustration of the way in which the highest crime against the nation has been dealt with. Treason vanquished upon the battle field has succeeded through the treachery of AndrewJohnson in escaping the blows of justice. It remains for the Congress of the U.S. to see to it that the people are not robbed of the fruits of the great victory won by the sword; and that before these communities can be restored to their former position they must comply with such conditions as may be deemed necessary for the future peace of the country. In a Government where there is the widest latitude given to the expression of individual opinion, and where opinion is formed into law through the instrumentality of the ballot box, it is but natural that there should be great diver sity of sentiment upon agauestion so important as that of deciding upon the true relation of those States to the Government which they had attempted to destroy and whose authority they were compelled to acknowledge after a bloody and destructive war. The public sentiment of the country is divided upon this question. Upon the one side are the whole of e people lately in rebellion, that entire class of people in the North who, if they did not sympathize with rebellion, constantly opposed every measure used for its overthrow, together with a few renegade Unionists, among whom is the POTUS On the other side are the truly loyal men of the South, both white and black, and that great and pat riotic body of people in the North who were true to the Government through its long and trying struggle with red handed treason. The sentiments of the people upon this questiofo began to be developed with the events imme diately following the overthrow of the rebellion, and have continued to be molded by successive events until now, when they have assumed a decided form, and are expressed either in advocacy of, or bitter hostility to, what is known as the President's policy of reconstruction. When AndrewJohnson was elevated to the Presidency through the assassination of Abraham Lincoln the 38 h Congress had expired by constitutional limitation. Without summoning together the legislative branch of the Government he at once began the work of reconstruction. He appointed provisional governors for these States, the calling of conventions in them for the purpose of starting the machinery of State government, demanded from them compliance with certain conditions which he imposed, and then pronounced them in a fit condition to the admitted into the Union, provided they sent loyal representatives to Congress. Before discussing the policy of the President relative to the admission of the representatives from the States lately in rebellion, permit me to say, sir, that, in my judgment, since the formation of this Government there never was a more glaring and notorious usurpation of power than that committed by AndrewJohnson in his attempt to direct the work of reconstruction. The most important question that ever came before the American people for consideration and action was that of the adjustment of the difficulties growing out of the war. The people in ten States had for 4 years been in rebellion against the constituted authorities of the country, a vast amount of ol. blood and treasure was on both sides, the passions and prejudices of the people were excited to a degree common only to such great conflicts; in short, the throes of one of the mightiest revolutions ever enacted in the great drama of human life had developed such a condition of public affairs as j the combined efforts and the col. lective skill and wisdom of all the depts of the Government. And yet in the midst of this condition of things AndrewJohnson one man, and a rash, obstinate, impulsive man at that, in a Government where the people rule through their representatives, and under a Constitution which expressly defines the powers and limits the duties of the Chief Magistrate, whose duty it is to execute the laws, and who has no part in making them except to make suggestions to Congress from time to time and to interpose his veto in such matters as he may see proper assumed the direction and control of the most momentous questions that may ever occur in the life of this nation. His work of restoration was therefore a work of usurpation, wholly unwarranted and unauthorized. the Constitution. But his plan for the readmission of the rebel States was as wrong as his assumption of jurisdiction over the question was illegal and unconstitutional. What was it, and what is it still? It is briefly this: that the act of secession on the part of those States being illegal, and the rebellion having been put down, the people in those States occupy the same position they did before the war, and are at once entitled to immediate representation in the Congress of the U.S. And in vindication of this position we are triumphantly asked by the president and his supporters, Did you not say that a State cannot secede; that you were only fighting to preserve the Union? And now, having succeeded in overthrowing the rebellion, you are not willing to have the Union, but insist on its disruption. True, we did say and still believe that a State cannot secede, and that we were contending solely for the preservation of the Union, and thus farwe shall have no difference of opinion with you; but as to the question whether States that have rebelled, set up a foreign government, tried to destroy the ja Government, waged a wicked war, and been vanquished after a long and bloody struggle, are entitled to stand precisely where they did before the war, and participate in the Government without any limitation or restriction imposed upon them, we do differ most widely. It is contended by the supporters of the President's policy that this is a government of States, and that as no State has a right to secede that it cannot after an unsuccessful war against the General Government be prohibited from exercising the rights of a State in the Union. And further, that as ours is a representative form of government, we are doing violence to our institutions by preventing any part of the people from being represented in the Government. These I believe are the main arguments relied upon by for them the correctness of their position. Let us examine them and see how far they have been true to these principles. In the 1st place, the argument that this is a Government of States, and that the Union was only a confederacy of States subject to be broken at the will of any State, was the one used by the secessionists for 25 years for the purpose of destroying the Union. They i."that the State was sovereign, that the Union was only a tempo rary convenience, and that the State might dissolve it at pleasure, and is it not singular that now, having tried secession and failed, they endeavored to avail themselves of the very oppo site doctrine 2Ihold that this doctrine is incorrect in principle and utterly pernicious and destructive of the very ends of government if carried out. It is not true that this is simply a Government of States. That was the basis upon which the old Union was formed and held together under the Articles of Confederation, but the system was found to be so defective that it was soon done away with. The States, acting upon the principle of their independence, disregarded the power of the General Government, and the latter was soon without power or authority among the States and without respect among other nations. The very weakness of the General Government was what occasioned the subsequent formation of the Federal Government under which we live. And, sir, while it is true that the Constitution of the U.S. is the fundamental chart by which we are to be governed, I contend that our fathers did more than to limit by express words what the Government could or could not do. When they created the government of the U.S. they created a nation which from the very necessities of its creation and existence was entitled to powers and rights as such which are not defined in the Constitution. Among these is the right to do all fing: necessary for its preservation as such?. Had we not acted upon this principle we would have been destroyed at the very outset of the war, for we were then told that there was no power and authority under the constitution to coerce a State. Is it not singular that this doctrine of the power of the States and the want of power in the Constitution to coerce them was used both to destroy and to create? By this sophistry they would have permitted the States to destroy the Union without molestation, because they told us there was no power in the Constitution to coerce them, and then when the States have been vanquished after a severe struggle, we are told that they still maintain their status under the Constitution, and charge us with being disunionists because we do not at once admit them. To show not only the utter absurdity but absolute danger there is in this wicked doctrine of State rights, it is necessary to inquire what constitutes a State and wherein is the power for evil. A State is composed of 3 things: 1st, a given area of territory; 2nd a certain number of people; and iii. local municipal law. It is manifest that the territory can do no harm, except in so far as it may serve by natural defenses to aid the people in their work of rebellion. The local municipal law is the creature of the people, and can only be made an instrument of danger to the Government provided the people so will it. It follows, then, that of these 3 necessary elements that form a State, the only danger to be apprehended by the Government is. the people that constitute the State. But we are told that no matter what the mind and heart of the people may be, no matter how hostile they are, and how ready they may be to destroy the General Government, and how much they may have done to destroy it, through the instrumentality of these lifeless corporations called the States, they are entitled to hold all the rights and privileges of the peaceable and loyal citizens of the Government. The whole people of a State may rebel, the people of . ten may rebel, and you have no power under the Constitution of the U.S. to coerce them because these indestructible things called the States dare not be interfered with. The people of those States after a long and deso ating war may be overcome, and they are immediately invested with all the rights of American citizens by the aid of these immutable corporations called the States., Sir, that is the doctrine of national ruin, of national death. The people indignantly repudiated that doctrine at the beginning of the war; they repudiated it all through the war; and since the war is over they have repudiated it by one of the most sublime national verdicts ever recorded. And although a plan for the restoration of. thoseStates was agreed upon in the last session of this Congress by the representatives of the people, and was, together with the policy of the President, submitted to the people for their action in the late campaign, I look upon the decision of the people rather as a condem nation of the President's policy than an expression of opinion in favor of the plan proposed by Congress as the only way to settle our national difficulties. We have, therefore, this all important question before us, and are charged with the respon sibility of deciding it, and guided, as we must be, by the overwhelming voice of those who sent us here. The policy of the President having been completely repudiated by the people we are compelled to look for some other mode of settlement that will be consistent with the wishes of the great body of the American people, and in harmony with those great principles of equal and exact jus tice that lie at the foundation of our Government. And I do not propose, sir, to embarrass myself with the consideration of the nice and subtle distinctions that are now being made in regard to whether those communities are still States, or whether, having taken up the sword and appealed to. arms and been van they are reduced to the condition of erritories. For whether they are States or Territories, I maintain that the jurisdiction of the loyal States is full, ample, and complete over the question of their admission into the Union. If the doctrine as laid down by Wattel be correct, that “A civilWar breaks the bands of society and govcrnment, or at least suspendstheir force and effect: it produces in the nation 2 independent parties, who consider each other as enemies and acknowl edge no fore, must cnoemcmesosnarjuildygbee.coTnhsoidseeretdwo parties, there: as constituting, thence forward at least for a time, 2 separate bodies, 2 distinct societies. Though one of these parties may have been to blame, in breaking the unity of the State and resisting the lawful authority, they are not the lessdivided in fact. Besides, who shall judge them? Who shall pronounceon which side the right or wrong lies? On earth they have no commonsupe rior. They stand, therefore, precisely in predicament the same as 2 nations who engage in a contest, and, being unable to come to an agreement, have recourse to arms.” WattefsLaw of Nations, p. 425. Then there can be no doubt as to our power over the question. On the other hand, if that rule does not apply, then I hold that the people of these States, having overthrown their institutions and placed them in an attitude of hostility to the Government, we as the conquering party have the right under that clause of the Constitution which requires that each State shall be guarantied a RFG, to examine their forms of government and determine whether they are in conformity to the Constitution. If we do not possess this right, then all we did during the war was wrong, and the rebel States would have had the right to be represented in congress during the war, embarrassing us by their votes in council as well as their guns in the field. But President Johnson (if indeed a person who has so completely swung around the circle of opinion that he may be quoted upon either side is entitled to be quoted at all as authority) has distinctly recognized this right when he demanded from them compliance with certain conditions, before even he would recognize their right to admission, and provided they sent loyal representatives. I may inquire here by what authority he imposes the last condition? }} they are entitled as States to representation what power has he to limit their selection to loyal representatives? Does not the fact that he does so limit them upset his whole doctrine of restoration? Whether as States or Terri tories, then, as we have the power to direct upon what terms they shall be admitted, it remains to be determined what is the safe way out of the difficulties that now surround us. In view of the great struggle that the nation has passed through 2 things, seem to be necessary: 1st, to enact, such legislation as will best provide against like difficulties in the future; and 2nd, to protect in every possible way the people in the South who have been true to the Union, without regard to their race or color. Had the people in those States sig nified their willingness to accept the amendments to the Constitution by is Congress, we would have been bound in good faith to accept them, but having rejected them it now becomes our duty to enact such further legislation as will thoroughly protect all classes of people. The amendments are necessary as part of the work of reconstruction, declaring as they do who are citizens of the U.S. providing against an undue exercise of politici power on the part of any State by prohibiting it from including in the basis of representation any class of people who may be denied the right of suffrage; excluding certain rebels from the right to hold office, and declaring the national debt binding upon the nation, while forever prohibiting the payment of any portion of the debt contracted by the rebels. These provisions are all wise and necessary; and as they have been so fully discussed and sanctioned by the great body of the American people I will not dwell upon them here. But in addition to them one thing more is needed; and that is, to confer the elective franchise upon all loyal men in those States as provided in the 4th section of the bill. I believe that this should be done both as a matter of right and expediency. In declarin it to be a matter of right I am aware that come in conflict with that class of people who believe that this Government was erected exclusively for the benefit of the white man. Sir, there never was a more unsound, pernicious doctrine proclaimed than that this is a white man's Government. When the fathers of the Revolution proclaimed the great principles enumerated in the DeclarIndep, that all men were created free, that they were en tiled to certain inalienable rights, among which were life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that “Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, ” they spoke the voice of humanity, asserting its rights in bold and manly terms after centuries of cruelty, oppression and misgovernment. Their plat form was no narrow, circumscribed one, but broad enough to cover all creeds, all classes and conditions of men, and whether thoroughly understood by them and acted.to by them or not, or whether understood an jup to by us in this generation or not, it will ever continue to inspire fresh hope in the heart of man kind, and will serve as the shibboleth of the party of progress in its conflicts with error, until every wrong done to humanity shall be effaced, and the whole family of man be governed by the same broad and generous principles of justice, equality, and fraternity. But if we are to be governed in our opinions by the action of our fathers, then we should extend the ballot to the freedmen; for I believe it to be a fact that after the formation of the Government, in every State except one the ballot was given to if free men of color, thus showing that they recognized the right of the colored man to the elective franchise. I hold, however, that in a Government where the people rule, every man who has a stake in the Government should have the ballot for his own protection. His property is liable to taxation for the purpose of the expenses of the Government, his personal services are demanded by the Government in time of war; he is affected by the public legislation of the country in his person and property, then why should he be prohibited from having a voice in the selection of his rulers? The great cry now raised by the advocates for the immediate admission of the rebel representa.tives is, that we are imposing taxation upon them without representation, but they are not willing to apply this principle to the 4 million blacks who will now have to bear their share of the burden of the Government. On the contrary, they would have representation without taxation, for they seem exceedingly anxious to represent these same 4 million blacks whose taxes they do not pay. I claim it fUrther as a right to the black man because he has been true to the Government in her late struggle with treason, while his master, with all the advantages of education, intellectual culture, the right of the ballot, and unlim ited political power in a country that had known him only to bestow benefactions upon him, proved a traitor, the poor, untutored, illiterate slave, proved true to the country in which he apparently had little to expect, its highest judicial tribunal having declared that he had no rights in the Government which a white man was bound to respect. But the black man is entitled to the ballot as a matter of protection against the very men who for 4 years have been in arms to destroy the Government. While you may disfranchise, leading traitors, the great body of them will still be permitted to exercise the elective franchise, and as time rolls on and the Passions and feelings of this generation are tempered by lapse of time they, too, may be restored to that right. We have seen enough to satisfy even the most skeptical that there exists in the minds of the rebels a deep seated hatred against the colored race because they would not identify themselves with the cause of their masters. They have shown it in the legislation enacted since the overthrow of the by which they have introduced slavery in everything except the name. Sir, it is a solemn, imperative duty that this nation owes to its. } people to protect them against their and the country's foes. It would be a burning, lasting disgrace to the nation were it to hand them over to their enemies. I know of no way in which this protection can be better iven than by extending to them the elective franchise. Civil rights bills, Freedmen's Bureau bills, and all kindred measures will fail so long as they can be evaded by local legislation; but place the ballot in the hands of the black man and you give him that which insures him respect as well as protection. You send him forth armed with the panoply of the American citizen, wielding that most powerful of all wea pons, the ballot. Which falls Like snow flakes fall upon the sod, Yet executes a freeman's will, As lightning does the will of God.” Sir, thus much for the right involved in the question of extending the ballot to freedmen. few suggestions as to the expediency of it and I am done. I may suggest that in that vast population so lately in armed hostility to the nion it could scarcely be expected that in heart and mind they could for many years to come be friendly to the Government which they have just tried to destroy. As a counter poise to this hostile element introduced into the Government, will be the infusion into it of the steady patriotism and blind faith of the black population, balancing so much loyalty against so much disloyalty. The bestowal of the elective franchise to the freedman would have a tendency to elevate him and raise him above the condition that his recent release from slavery has left him in. And should we not rather strive to elevate than depress so large a number of people, constituting, as they do, nearly one 7th of the entire population of the country? Will not the nation be more benefited by the moral, religious, and political improvement of this large class of people than i. permitting them to remain in a state of ignorance and help. lessness? And what can be better calculated to infuse hope into the mind, elevate the understanding, and enlighten the conscience of the freedman, than to invest him with all the rights, duties, and responsibilities of an American citizen? I am not willing to believe, sir, that the elevation of this poor, unfortunate race of people will tend to degrade the white race, but am rather inclined to think that as they rise in the scale of intelligence so will the white race advance to a greater degree of improvement. But it is expedient in another point of view and that is as a final and complete settlement of the negro question. Since the formation of the Government the condition of the negro has been the vexed question in our politics. The war worked his release from bondage, and with it came the question of his right to citizenship and the ballot. It has been truly said that unsettled questions leave no repose, and especially is this the case in a Government where all questions must stand the test of public discussion. And with the negro asserting his rights, with the mighty intellectual power in the North arrayed ". his side, and with public sentiment fast drifting in that direction, its settlement cannot long be deferred. Sir, confer this right, and not only does the agitation of the question cease, but you approxi mate nearer to the great fundamental principles upon which our Government rests; the great disturbing element is removed from our body politic, and our institutions will be in harmony with the ideas and principles upon which they were founded. I have no fears in extending this privilege to the black man. I would infinitely rather trust the ballot to the black man who shouldered a musket to defend his Government than to the white traitor who tried to destroy it. The enfranchisement of black loyalists and disfranchisement of certain rebels, or rather suffrage upon a loyal basis, will be the surest protection to the loyal whites of the South. Unless they are reenforced by the addition of the loyal black element it is perfectly manifest that they will be subjected to rebel rule. In fact, that whole section is almost as completely dominated over by rebel authority as when Lee's battalions held undisputed sway over it. There to have been loyal to the Gov.ment is to be subjected to the scorn and hatred of the rebels, and in many sections life itself is endangered by reason of their intense hatred against Unionists. The voice of the loyal whites of the South, who have suffered every conceivable wrong on account of their fidelity to the Union, comes to us demanding in thunder tones that we shall so reconstruct this Government that its friends, and not its enemies, shall rule. We would be untrue to them, untrue to the mar tyred dead, untrue to ourselves and to posterity, if we disregard their admonitions. Sir, the great duty rests upon us to finish the work which was not completed by warfare. The shackles of 4 million slaves were melted by the fierce fires of civilWar; but the animus of slavery, its passions and prejudices, yet remain. It is our duty so to legislate as to remove the last relic of a barbarism that would have suited the dark ages, and to conform our institutions to the advanced condition to which we have been oby the mighty revolution just ended. And when this shall have been done the great Republic, freed from the dark stain of human slavery, will start upon her mission to promulgate, by precept and example, the immutable and eternal truth of the equality of man, and before whose resistless march king doms and empires, principalities and powers, and all the ;upon caste and creed for the oppression of man, will be swept from the face the earth, and be known no more forever.