Mr. WI LLEY. Mr. President, it is a matter of indifference to me whether the amendment proposed by the honorable Senfrom Wisconsin be adopted or not. My impression is that if it should be incorporated into the proposed constitutional amendment it. will emas culate it pretty effectually, and that the prac tical result will be that you will find in the end very few individuals who ever entered into the rebellion voluntarily. A few of the more prominent, of course, could not escape; but it would be almost impossible to prove in the southern States, where there would be a general disposition to evade the fact, thatany person who has not been very prominently engaged in the rebellion had ever entered into it volun tarily. Indeed, ifI understand the orment or affidavit of Mr. Stephens, made before the committee of 15, 1 take it that his plea is that he never entered into the rebellion volun tarily. But, sir, I did not rise so much to say anything upon the amendment oifered by the Senfrom Wisconsin as to reply to the argument of the Senfrom Kentucky, which is but a reiteration of the argument of the Senfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. Cowan] the other day, and of the repeated arguments of the Senfrom Wisconsin, [Mr. DOOLITTLE] that this amendment is vindictive in its character; that it is expostfacto in its nature; that it is designed as a mnishment for the crime of treason. I utter deny that such is the philosophy of the amendment, or that such can e said properly to be the intention of the amendment. It may, in its results, Operate as a punishment, as an odium, as a diserace upon the parties to whom it shall apply; but, sir, what is the purpose of this amendment? I will state what I understand to be its purpose. It is not to punish the men who engaged in the rebellion for the crime which they have committed; the law in that respect is ample now; but, not being penal in its character, it is recautionary. It looks not to the past, but it me reference, as I understand it, wholly to the future. It is a measure of self defense. It is designed to prevent a repetition of treason by these men, and being apertnanent provision of the Constitution, it is intended to operate as a preventive of treason hereafter by holding out to the people of the U.S. that such will be the penalty of the offense if they dare to commitit. It istherefoi'e not a measure offuntshment buta measure of self defense; an the honorable Senfrom Wisconsin was, l in point of fact, driven to that conclusion at last by the interrogatory proponnded to him by his colleague; and then he asked. in consideration of the amnesty proclaimed by Mr. JOHNson and of the legislation of Congress on that subject, would it be just, would it be right to incorporate such a provision as this in the Constitution of the U.S. excluding these men hereafter forever from holding cities? New, sir, is it right? The duty of the government and the citizen is reciprocal; the obligation is mutual. The Government owes to its citizen protection; the citizen ewes to the Government obedience and support; and I demand to know of the Senfrom Wisconsin, or any other Senator, whether there is in the annals of history the case of a Government so benign as has been that of the U.S., and where the obligation on the part of the Government has been so ierfectly performed and so adeqiately exten ed? Do Senators pretend to say that the men disqualified by the proosed amendment rebelled because they in anyjust cause to rebel, any just cause of complaint on the part of the Government; that it had failed to atford them the protection that was due from the Government to them? Do Senators uretend to say that there was the shadow of a pretext to justify these men in going into the rebellion? Then, sir, if they cannot answer these interrogatories in the affirmative. as I know they cannot, and will not dare to do so, how does the case stand? Here was the Federal government extending to these men ample protection. What did they do? Yield) to the Government the support that was due from them to the Government? No, sir; not only did they withhold support from the Government, but they drew the sword to destro it. And now, sir, the proposition is shall these men, who have thus forfeited their allegiance and shown how unfaithful they could be to the most benign Government in the world, be allowed again to become the depositaries of the political power of the U.S., the cus todians and executors of our laws and liberties? Would there be any justice or any proriety in allowing men to be again introduced into the Government who have, under such circumstances as these, shown themselves to be so faithless to their trust? That is the question; and looking to the future peace and security of this country, I ask whether it would be just or right to allow men who have thus proven themselves faithless to be again in trusted with the political power of the State. I think not; and upon thatground I think this exclusion is wise, is just, is charitable, and is Christian, and that we would be faithless to our trust if we allowed the interests of the country and its future peace and welfare to be again disturbed by men who have shown themselves thus faithless in the ast. And, sir, it does seem to me that there is a degree of presumption in men who have hardly yet washed their hands of the blood of our fellow citizen! that they have shed in their insane cffortsgo destroy this Government, coming here and clam oring at the door of Congress again for the very political power which they have hitherto used for the destruction of this Government. You may say they will do us no harm by being again allowed to hold office. How was it in the origin of our troubles? How was it when these men were in office before the rebellion commenced? How did they use the power that was intrusted to them?Ianswer, by sending our vessels away from our shores; by transferring our arms from the North to the South and by depicting the Treasury of the U.S. by preconcerted arrangements, so that when the rebellion should be precipitated upon the country the power of the Federal Government would be crippled and to a great extent destroyed. Shall we again trust men of this character, who, while actin under the obligation of the oath to snpportt le Constitution of the U.S., thus betrayed their country and betrayed their trust? I hope. sir, that we shall hear no more outery about the injustice, the inhumanity and the want of Christiau spirit in thus incorporating iuto our Constitution precautionary measures that will forever prohibit these unfaithful men from again having any part iu the Government. They have no moral right to it; they have forfeited it. by their past conduct. If, herealter, they shall show works meet for re entance, and that they are to be relied upon, t iis revision contains within it the means by which the disability may he removed, and they may be again allowed to participate in the political administration of the Government.