Mr. HIGBY. Mr. Speaker, the ComReconstruction, appointed early in the last session of Congress, reported an amendment to the Constitution of the U.S., which they recommended should be submitted for ratification to the several States of the Union; and accompanying that amendment they also reported a bill to provide for restoring the States lately in rebellion to their full political rights. The preamble of that bill recites the constitutional amendment to which I have referred, and then proceeds to enact as follows: “Now, therefore, “Be it enactedby the Senate and HoRep of the U.S.A. in Congress assembled, That whenever the above recited amendment shall have becomepart of the Constitution of the U.S., and any State lately in insurrection shall have ratified the same, and shall have mod ified its constitution and laws in conformity there with, the Sens&Reps from such State, if having found duly elected and qualified, may, after taken the required oaths of office, be admitted into Congressas such. “SEC. 2. Abife: That when any State lately in insurrection shall have ratified the foregoing amendment, to the Constitution, any part of the direct tax under the act of August 5, 1861, which may remain due and unpaid in such State may be assumed and paid by such State; and the payment thereof, upon proper assurancesIrom such State, to be given to the SecyTreasury of States, may the U.S. be postponed for a period not exceeding ten years from and after the passage of this act.” I understand, Mr. Speaker, that that bill is now before the House, that it has received no action, and that the amendments which have been proposed by the member from Pennsylvania [Mr. STEvens] are in the nature of a substitute. I can readily account for the position which was occupied by the distinguished member from Ohio, [Mr. BINGHAM, also a member of the committee, and understand why he adhered with tenacity to the ground taken by that committee one year ago. I think I can see area son why the committee also should oppose the amendment presented by the member from Pennsylvania. The bill and amendment bein reported by the committee no doubt receive the sanction of this committee, and having received that sanction we have no reason for supposing that as yet there is any change of sentiment upon this question of reconstruction in the committee of 15. Mr. Speaker, the House does not stand committed to the position that was occupied by that committee. And I will say here in advance that while as between the original bill and the amendment I would by all means support the latter, yet I am prepared to sustain a bill some other than the one recommended by the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, provided it has incorporated in it the main principles that are contained in that. Rather than have nothing I will support the bill that he has presented with the amendments that have been proposed to it. The Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. SPALDING] has proposed an amendment which has been accepted by the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, which, in my judgment, much, improves the bill as it came to us from his hands. It must be borne in mind that the amendment to the Constitution as proposed by that committee was much changed in its features here in the House, and after going to the Senate it there received a material modification, and when it came back to the House we passed it at once as amended by the Senate. By simply turning over one leaf in the committee's report we find what the article was as it passed both House and Senate. We are told not only that this House is committed to the policy adopted by that commit.tee, but that in the political campaign last fall the constitutional amendment was declared to be a final measure of reconstruction, and that it was sent out to the States by Congress for ratification as such final measure. I have made this statement of the history of this matter and of the position which the ComReconstruction occupied. We have nq assurance that the committee would report anything different from what they have already reported to this House, and yet, if I am not mistaken this bill is now before the House on a motion to recommit to the ComReconstruction. Sir, the House had better consider before it makes that disposition of it. We should rather retain it here before us, where we can change, mature, and finally pass it and send it to the Senate. The 39th Congress has made no progress on the question of reconstruction. This House will not pass a bill in accordance with this portion of the amendment. The Senate would pass no such bill. The House and Senate both stand committed to an entirely different policy of reconstruction from what is contained in that amendment. And how does it happen that we have made no progress? It is not the fault of Congress; it is not the fault of the members of either branch of Congress. When Congress met in december, 1865, it found that the POTUS had been busy during the long recess in building up State governments in every one of the States that had been in rebellion. I say States for convenience sake, though my judgment is that not one of the ten insurgent States has a government at this time with a sin gle element of loyalty in it, or an element that constitutes a State. They saw fit to sever their connection with the Federal Government; they denied all allegiance to it, and fought for 4 years at great sacrifice of life and expenditure of money to maintain their separation, and it is proper that the General Government should take them at their word and say that they have no State governments under the Constitution of the U.S. until such time as their true and proper relationship can be perma nently settled. I hold at the same time that the territory which they inhabit belongs to the Government of the U.S., is within its dominion and subject to its control. The POTUS told us in his annual message of December, 1865, that the work of reconstruction was all done; that the insurgent States were restored and rein stated, and would send their members to congress; and that Congress had only to pass upon the questions of election and qualification of the members from the several States. Thus was Congress frustrated in its work. The President by what I call an act of usurpation, had presumed to do all this work, and he has been struggling ever since to force his policy upon the country on the ground that he had the power to do this work and it did not belong to congress. Had the Executive been in accord with this Congress at the commencement of its 1st session there would have been some prog ress in the work of reconstruction. But, sir, how do we stand today? What is the position of the Government? What is the sentiment already expressed, crystallized into the form of law? The constitutional amendment when it is adopted becomes of binding effect only upon States that have representation in Congress. It applies to States and Suates only. Then look at our recent legislation. Only a few days ago loyal Nebraska and Colorado came and asked to be received as States into the Union. What was done in the Senate? A section was annexed by way of amendment that impartial suffrage should be the rule within each of those Territories when they became States. When it came to the House it was amended, the object being to make it more secure, more certain, and more valid; but the strong expression of this body was that neither of thosei.could come in as a State unless impartial suffrage were tolerated in each. That is the principle that was promulgated in the Senate; that is the principle that has been promulgated here; and a few days previous to taking that vote it was voted in this House that impartial suffrage should be the rule in every one of the Territo ries within the limits of the U.S. Well, sir, the insurgent States of which I have been speaking are no better than Terri, tories in their position. Are we to wait until this amendment be ratified by them or made a part of the Constitution by the States represented in Congress, and then make that the direct basis of reconstruction? Shall SCarolina, upon the terms that are required by that amendment, come here and ask for admission as a State into this Union, and her representatives be allowed upon this floor? Shall she be allowed to come here and act as if she were a State while she excludes from suffrage her colored population, which is equal to her white population? Is she to be admitted to representation simply upon conforming to the terms of the amendment, exercising the right herself to exclude colored suffrage? Would this House dare to vote to admit her as a State into this Union under such circumstances? Would it not be an absurdity in our action that would make this Congress a laughing stock in the eye of the whole country if rebel SCarolina should be placed upon a better or any other footing than loyal Colorado and Nebraska is placed? Impartial suffrage is required of each of those Territories as a condition precedent to their becoming States; and shall SCarolina, upon this basis of reconstruction, become a part of this Union upon different terms and principles entirely from those implied by the votes we have just given 7 My own judgment is that neither this House nor the Senate will ever support such a proposition as that. Sir, this nation has advanced in one year's time, and will not now, I cannot believe, sustain the position assumed by the ComReconstruction in the original bill to which the one under consideration is a substitute. Suppose, Mr. Speaker, we carry out this idea of making the constitutional amendment the direct basis upon which reconstruction shall depend; the States that were restored or reestablished under the policy of the President went into the hands, as civil powers, of the very men that Grant and Sherman disarmed in the final struggle. While they were thus being disarmed of their military power the POTUS was arming them with civil power by his plan of restoration. such was the condition of every one of the States which he had remodeled and in which he had established governments, and such is their condition today. Every one of them, so far as they had any governmental action, was then manifestin its hostility to the Government of the U.S. There was but one of the rebellious States that was an exception to this rule, and that State was not reorganized under his policy. I refer to the State of Tennessee. That State was reorganized and formed a State government before he became POTUS And, sir, where it is attempted to be argued that Tennessee is a precedent for action in these other cases the analogy fails. There there was loyalty; there there was devotion to the Government; although, let me say, I did not vote for the readmission of Tennessee because that State failed to acknowledge one great principle that now, at this session of congress, is sustained by large majorities at both ends of the Capitol, namely, impartial suffrage." But the State was in the hands of loyal men; it had exhibited its devotion to the Government and its readiness to obey the laws; its Legislature had ratified the amendment proposed to the Constitution prohibiting slavery and the one passed or proposed last session, and Congress therefore readmitted Tennessee and received her representatives. But, sir, take this policy of reconstruction based upon the adoption of this constitutional amendment, and what then? SCarolina, because there is no power to dictate to that State a change in its constitution, comes here with the same constitution that it now has, comes here with the same men in pewer that are now in power and have been for a year past, and othe same laws and despotic rules that are now crushing down the loyal men of that State; and we must admit SCarolina in her present condition! That is the position that has been urged here and is alleged to have been urged in various congressional districts throughout the country. We will find our selves with our hands tied, and compelled to foist and fasten upon the Government of this country this State government of a most odious character; and this is only one of these State governments of the same character; I havementioned it merely as an example. There never was a committal of this branch of congress to any such position. I deny it emphat ically. Mr. Speaker, Ispoke in the outset very briefly of this bill. I have read it and reread it. I confess that the 2nd section of this bill was objectionable to me. But the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. STEVENs] withdrew that section, leaving it no part of the bill, when very great objection was made to it by one or 2 members.. But after that was done the Gentfrom Illinois [Mr. BAKER] went on to make a very fierce onslaught upon the 6th section of the bill, simply upon the ground that it proposed to place these southern people in the position of foreigners, and requiring them to go through the process of naturalization before they could again exercise the right of citizen sohip. That was the ground the gentleman took. he for a moment deny that we have the right to exclude rebels and traitors from the exercise of the elective franchise? And if we have the power to keep them from the ballot box, may we not dictate the method by which they may return to it? Is there any reason why we may not, if we see fit, tell them that after 5 years, if they go through the process of naturalization, they may again vote? To my mind there can be no possible objection to that if we have the power to exclude them from the ballot box at all. Sir, I will vote for the bill as it is, if need be, although I would like to see it more thoroughly matured. I will vote for some other bill, if I have the chance, which comes up more nearly to what I desire. I will vote for some bill or other in order that there may be one step taken in the process of reconstruction. The loyal people of the South cry out in earnest for us to do something for their relief. And they have cause to do so. The governments which have been given to the rebellious States by the President are all in the hands of men who are full of cruelty. They love cruelty, and indulge in it today as they have been indulging in it for months. And it is the voice of distress and suffering that comes up here to us asking for protection and relief; and it is the duty of the 39th Congress to do something in the process of reconstruction. In regard to the amendment of the Constitution proposed by Congress at its last session, I looked upon it simply as a barrier over which no State could step after it should once have become a part of the Constitution. No one denied the power of Congress to prescribe just such terms as are to be found in that amendment; and the object of proposing it for ratification was that there might be imbedded in the Constitution the principles therein contained, so that no State legislation and no legislation of Congress should be able to override them. It was not to decide the question of our right to say to a State, “Thus far shalt thou go, and no farther;” that was not it. But it was to have imbedded in the constitution certain principles which could not be overridden y any State or by Congress. One of the principles involved in that amendment was equality of representation. The southern people had formerly held 4 million slaves eacl. 5 of whom were counted as 3 white people in their representation, though the slaves i. no voice in the choice of the representatives based upon their numbers. When those 4 million slaves came to be emancipated then representation became based upon the whole number instead of upon 3/5th s only as before. That provision of the amendment to the Constitution was for the purpose of preventing the Government of the U.S. from i.overslaughed by the representatives of a class who were to have no voice whatever in the election of those Representatives. Now, what demands have anyone of those ten States to make of this Government? What demand has even Nebraska to make? and she can make as many demands as NCarolina, SCarolina, or Georgia. What demands have either of them a right to make upon the Government? They have no legal State constitutions; they are not acknowledged by us to be States; they have had no Representatives in this Hall since the session of 1860–61; they are not held by Congress to occupy the position of States. If one of them desires to come into this Union as a State, is it not perfectly consistent for this Congress to do with SCarolina or Georgia what it has done in regard to Nebraska and Colorado? We have the right to say to them: the colored citizen born upon the soil must be allowed the right of suffrage; that this is one of the prerequi sites to the admission of their Representatives upon this floor. Is there anything inconsistent in that? If so, then we have already been in consistent in regard to Nebraska and Colorado. Then, if I am right in that, the amendment to the Constitution proposed to the States for ratification is not the final measure of reconstruction. And, sir, we should not wait the action of the State Legislatures on the amendment proposed to them before we adopt legislation here to secure and protect, if possible, the loyal men in those States; and if there is to be a reorganization, one to be acknowledged by Congress, it should be a reorganization under the control of loyal men and none others. Mr. Speaker, the opposition of the minority of this House has been consistent, steady, and unceasing to every proposition involving the interest and salvation of the Republic. James Buchanan, occupying the presidential chair when this rebellion commenced, said there was no: of secession under the Constitution of the U.S., that no State had the right to secede, but that he had no authority under the Constitution to oppose or prevent it. suppose, sir, that a man being murdered should use no means to oppose the violence inflicted upon him by the murderer except to say to his assailant, “You have no moral, no religious, no legal right to do what you are doing, but I have no right or authority to oppose you in your attack upon me.” Mr. Speaker, would not this be an anomaly? Would anything in the affairs of men long exist with the tendency to so much mischief and evil manifest in all ages? Creation would be useless, as destruction would immediately follow. Sir, there would be as much sense in such a proclamation by any man murderously assailed as there was in the announcement trade by the President of this Republic when the southern States were taking their measures of secession. Sir, there is no Government that has not the power within it of self preservation. Mr. Speaker, the Opposition have been constantly proclaiming the same idea weakness of the General Government, its inability to resist violence. The changes have constantly been rung upon the Constitution; every step we have ohas been declared to be in violation of the Constitution of the U.S. It broken and torn by the majority here the gentlemen composing the minority can find enough of it left to warrant their coming here and taking part in legislation. This cry of invasion of the Constitution is the final resort in every argument. We are constantly told that we are unconstitutionally infringing upon the rights of the States, trying to blot out and obliterate State lines. Mr. Speaker, I am not forgetful of the fact that our Government is complex in form, that while we have a national Government we have State sovereignties within and under that Government. And I am not unmindful of another fact: that the States in their separate capacities and the nation as a whole are completely and admirably represented in the legislative branch of this Government. the other end of this Capitol are the proper and legitimate representatives of the States, while the members of this House are the representatives of the people at large. I am not unmindful of another. that the people in order to form a more perfect Union did ordain and establish the Constitution of the U.S. Sir, until I see some flagrant outrage committed by the Senate upon the rights of the States I shall feel it my duty to leave the guardianship of the States to them and confine myself to my legitimate business as a representative of the people. I shall not, however, while so actin !. that there are States in this Union. When I hear so much said at this end of the Capitol about violating the Constitution and infringing the rights of the States, I think it is like t 'í.resort of kings; they have no other argument, and they think this is very fine to dwell upon. Our Constitution, I think, has been well preserved, not only by loyal Representatives in. Hall, but by the loyal men who went to the field and fought our battles and crushed the rebellion. Mr. Speaker, I have digressed somewhat from the bill before the House, but I think that the question upon which I have dwelt had reference more or less to it. I think that a proper self respect on the part of Congress, as. a regard to the welfare and safety of the nation, requires that before this session expires we shall adopt some measure which will enable the loyal men of the southern States to reorganize government and have some protection for themselves. I had proposed to yield the remainder of my time to the Gentfrom Ohio, [Mr. SHEL LABARGER,) but I see that he is not now present. PAINTINGS FOR THE HALL.