June 13, 1866 (2)

Mr. ROGERS here addressed the House. [His remarks will be found in the Appendix.]

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Speaker, as i am the only Representative that the young, growing, and interesting State of Oregon lias on this floor, I feel it my duty to ask the indulgence of the House while 1 submit the views I entertain oji the great subject now under consideration. After the most careful investigation I have been able to give the matter, and all I have heard on it, I am constrained to believe that the whole difficulty in the way of disposing of the case grows out of the want of a correct knowledge of the relation the States lately in rebellion now sustain to the General Government. Are they in the Union or out of it? If in, in what sense? When a physician is called to minister to the welfare of a patient, in order that he may act beneficially ho must understand the nature of the disease and what has caused it. So Congress can never act wisely and successfully in the work of reconstruction until we understand the exact status of the States lately in rebellion against the General Government and what caused the present condition of things.

In order that we may have a correct idea of the existing condition of those States, let us inquire what constitutes a State; let us analyze the composition of a State. There are four entities that enter into the organism of every State. Take away any one of them, and the State ceases to exist as such. First, there must be territory; second, there must be inhabitants; third, there must be a constitution and laws; fourth, there must be the necessary officers to carry these laws into execution. These are all essential to the existence of a State, and if you. remove one the State ceases. Is not this true? In the -next place, let us inquire how a State becomes a member of the Union: first, it must present a constitution and laws in harmony with the Constitution and laws of the United States; second, the inhabitants of such Territory must express their desire for such Union through the proper channel: third, the consent of Congress must be given in a formal act. Is not this also true?

In the next pla ee let us inquire what are the consequences of such a union. First, the new States assume certain obligations and the General Government is relieved of certain duties and responsibilities; the new State acquires certain rights and privileges, and the General Government yields certain rights and prerogatives—the general result is, that, the Federal Government has parted with just as much authority as the new State has gained by the union, The new State now stands upon an equal footing with the original States. But let it not be supposed that the General Government surrendered all her rights and prerogatives in such new State; far from it. It still retains the power to lay duties and collect taxes; to regulate commerce among the States; to regulate the currency; to establish post offices and post roads, &c.; Congress still retains these and other enumerated powers in all the States.

Let us next inquire what are the results of a rebellion against the General Government by one or more of the States of the Union: first, the States rebelling and throwing off' the Constitution and laws of the United Stats s and making w ir against them, forfeit all the rights and privileges they acquired by coming into the Union; second, all these forfeited rights and privileges naturally and necessarily revert back to the source from which they came—the General Government. These conclusions are so natural and philosophical that I think no man will dispute them. Those rebel States staked all the rights that they held by the consent of the General Government at the commencement of the rebellion for the chance of what they could obtain by force; and being conquered, they justly and rightfully lost all.

Now, sir, at the time of the surrender of Lee s army, in. what condition do we find them? As organized States, enjoying all the rights and privileges of States that had never rebelled? Have they constitutions and laws that the General Government is bound torespect? Nothing of the kind, sir. Did these conquered provinces still have the right to hold and treat men and women as slaves? Did Virginians still have the right, to make merchandise of their own sons and daughters, as formerly? Did the President of the United States recognize the existence of their corps of State officers? No, sir; President Johnson recognized the existence of neither governor, judge, nor marshal among them, but rightfully and properly ignored and rejected the idea of a State officer in all rebeldom, and went to work and appointed temporary officers to act for the time being. I he moment these States fired the first gun against the flag of the Union their State governments tumbled into nonentity; and if the rebellion had been squelched in four months instead of four years, the results as to their State governments would have been the same.

Now, sir, can a State government exist four years without an officer to execute its laws? if it can, how many years can it not exist without officers? Then, sir, if the position taken at the outset be correct, that a State cannot exist without officers to execute its laws, I have demonstrated that there was no State government in any of those Territories at the close of the rebellion; and as a matter of course they were not then in the Union his States, nor are they yet in the Union as such. I know that the question arises here, "What became of the rights of those who remained loyal in those Territories if their rights as States were all forfeited?" I answer, their natural rights remain, but thenpolitical rights for the time being all went down with their governments. This is their misfortune, and not the fault of the General Government.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it appears to me that the status of these so called States is perfectly clear. As States they are out of the Union, having lost some of the essential elements of a State, and also having forfeited all their rights as such; but as Territories they are in the Union. Gentlemen on the other side of the House claim that if these Territories are not in the Union as States, then the Union is dissolved. This assertion is ridiculously absurd. Did not the Union once exist with but nine States, and afterwards with thirteen? Now, sir, if it then existed with these numbers can it not now exist with twenty three States?

The loyal States did not prosecute the war for the purpose of sustaining State governments. Ask the tens of thousands of patriot soldiers who left wives and children that they loved dearer than life and went into the swamps and fens of the southern States, fought upon a hundred battle fields and languished in prisons and camps, what they made this terrible sacrifice for; would they answer, "to sustain State governments?" No, sir; not a bit of it. What did they care whether the tyrannical government of South Carolina, or the barbarous government of Virginia was sustained or not? They fought for no such paltry purpose; but they did fight, and the heroes who now fill honored graves died, to sustain national authority in all those territories. That is what the war was waged to sustain, not State governments. 1 ask gentlemen on the other side of the Hall if that was a failure. Is any part of the United States territory now under a foreign government? No, thank God! the stars and stripes, surmounted by the American eagle, now wave triumphantly over every foot of soil the United States ever owned. The General Government holds and exercises all the prerogatives now that it held in those States before the rebellion, and also all forfeited by them. The rebels have all they acquired by the rebellion and all the General GcA crnment has conceded to them since its suppression, and no more.

In view of the foregoing facts in reference to those States lately in rebellion, 1 arrive at the following conclusions: First, that they are not in the Union as States. Second, that they are in it as Territories. Third, that rebels have no rights except those conceded to them since their subjugation. Fourth, that Congress may rightfully and lawfully dispose of all those Territories as she thinks proper, under two restrictions, namely: first, must secure to all that may be organized into States a "republican form of government;" second, must respect the private rights of the loyal inhabitants. Fifth, rebels have no just grounds for complaints while their lives are spared to them, as they staked rights, property, and life itself upon the chances of war and lost all. Sixth, that Congress has a perfect right to admit them or any of them to the enjoyment of State privileges now, at some future period, or never, as she may judge best calculated to promote the general welfare.

Now, Mr. Speaker, whether these statements and conclusions are all correct or not, they are the honest convictions of my heart, and I believe them true as certainly as I believe that God lives: consequently, I shall vote most heartily and cheerfully forthe proposed amendment to the Constitution.

Mr. FINCK. Mr. Speaker, I do not suppose any words 1 may utter on this occasion will arrest the predetermined action of the large majority of this House, but I propose to call the attention of the House and the country, in a few remarks, to the strange spectacle which is now being exhibited by the Representatives of only a portion of the States of this Union. What do we see? A determined and persistent effort to exclude from the national Legislature the Representatives of eleven States. We see a majority of the Representatives of the twenty five States here represented saying, in a proposed amendment to (lie Constitution, to be followed up by legislation, to the eleven States which are unrepresented, that they shall never come within these walls unless they consent to and adopt all the conditions which shall be imposed by this majority of the twenty five States.

More than this, and I say it here because I have the firm conviction that it is true; the majority on this floor represent to day a minority of the people of the United States. Take my own State, Ohio, with one hundred and ninetyfour thousand Democratic voters at the election last October. She has on this floor but two members representing that immense vote, while the two hundi ed and twenty fonrthousand who voted the Republican ticket for Governor Cox in 1805 have seventeen Representatives on this floor, and in the Senate they have both members. If a fair vote of the people of Ohio were taken to day as to whether the restoration policy of the President orthe obstruction policy of the radicals of this Congress should be sustained, I believe a majority of the people of Ohio would be in favor of sustaining the policy of the President and of the two Democratic Representatives of that State on this floor.

Mr. Speaker, this is not the time to make amendments to the Constitution.

Time will not allow me to examine the whole of this proposition, and I will confine my remarks to the second andthird sections. Now, what is proposed by the second section of this amendment? The purpose of the section is to reduce representation in this House in all the States which exclude the negro from voting. To exclude from the count the entire colored population of the States whose constitutions or laws may deprive these people of the right of suffrage. While this section admits the right of the States thus to exclude negroes from voting, it says to them, if you do so exclude them they shall also ba excluded from all representation; and you shall suffer the penalty by loss of representation. It seeks to do by indirection that which gentleman shrink from doing in a direct manner, namely, to compel the States to adopt negro suffrage. Why do you not present this question in an open and square way. and make the issue of negro suffrage direct before the people?

What is to be the effect of this amendment? in order to avoid the effect of this proposition before the people at the coming October and November elections, you have worded it in the manner in which it is presented to this House so as to enforce, if possible, through motives of interest, negro suffrage in those States where they reside in large numbers. How will this amendment affect such States? Let us take it as applied to a few of the States of this Union. Take the State of Maine. According to the census of 1800, Maine had 107 72 1 white males over the age of twenty one years. How many black males had she over that age? Only 802. So, then, it does not at all affect the power and influence of that State on this floor.

But look at Maryland. By the census of 1860 she had a. population of 128 371 white male citizens of the age of twenty one and at the same time she had a population of 38 030 black males over that age.• This proposition, therefore, strikes from the number of Representatives of the State of Maryland one fourth of her representation on this floor; and takes away at least one of her members.

Take the State of South Carolina. It is well known that her black population are in the majority. By the census of 1800 she had 08 151 white males over the age of twenty one and 02 023 blacks over that age. More than one half of the representation of that State will therefore be excluded.

Mississippi is in the same condition. That State by the same census contained 84 338 white males over twenty one years of age. and 98 510 blacks. So she will lose in the same proportion.

New Hampshire had in 1800 a white male population over the age of twenty one years of 1 94i How many black males do you suppose she had over that age? Only 149.

The disinterested gentlemen from such States 'are for changing the basis of representation, so that it shall increase relatively their power here. They propose, while they believe they have the power to do so, to make this great change deeply affecting the rights and interests of States which are denied all right to discuss and vote on such a grave, proposition in either House of Congress, and thus reduce by at least twenty five the number of members to which the States to be affected by this amendment are now by the Constitution and laws of the United States entitled.

But I cannot dwell upon this second section. Considering the fact that eleven Slates are now denied all representation here, it is an effort outside of constitutional power to change this Government. What did the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Bot TWEM declare one month ago on this floor in reference to this question. He used this language: "Well, sir, I am for a. T Union, and for that Union only in which there is snh tant ial justice among the o men and between the States composing it."

Not the Union, not the old Union, of which that old flag [pointing to the flag o er the Speaker s chair] is emblematic; no, sir, but for "a Union." He further said:

I accept one fact, ami no gentleman can escape tlio force of that fact, and that that tho je eleven States are not to-day dav represented in the Congress of this country, and with my consent they never shall be until this inequality is adjusted or its adjustment provided for."

That is the proposition, that these eleven States are not, to be represented until the inequality of representation, of which gentlemen now complain, shall be provided for. Provided for, how and by whom? By the remaining twenty five States through two thirds of their representatives upon the floor of the Senate and House of Representatives. Sir, there is no warrant for such a thing in the Constitution.

But I cannot dwell upon this proposition in the limited time that is allowed me. There is another section in this amendment to which 1 will now refer. There was a celebrated third section in the proposition which passed this House a month ago. If I understood the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Stevens] correctly this morning, he said he was going to vote for the amendments made by the Senate and now pending before this House. I ask the Clerk to read what the gentleman said a month ago on this same question On the day the final vote was taken in this House on the amendments reported by the joint committee of fifteen the gentleman from Pennsylvania rallied his friends to the support of that celebrated third section. "The third section or nothing," was his cry. I will ask the Clerk to read what the gentleman said on that occasion.

The Clerk read as follows:

"Mr. Stevens. I should be sorry to find that that provision was stricken out, because before any portion of this can be put into operation there will be, if not a Herod, a worse than Herod elsewhere to obstruct our actions. That side of the .House will be filled with yelling secessionists and hissing coppcrneads. Give us the third section or give us nothing. Do not mock us with the pretense of an amendment which throws the Union into the hands of the enemy before it becomes consolidated.

"Gentlemen say I speak of party. "Whenever party is necessary to sustain the Union I say rally to your party and save the Union. I do not hesitate to say at once, that section is there to save or destroy the Union party, is there to save or destroy the Union by the salvation or destruction of the Union party."

Mr. FINCK. Thus, according to the declaration of the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania, the party which he represents is already destroyed, because lie says 4; that section is there to save or destroy the Union party." it was there for the safety or destruction of the party h e so ably represents. I But that third section is there no longer. It has perished in the house of its friends, and according to the logic of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the party he represents is destroyed. Peace to its ashes!

Mr. KLD1UDC IS. Amen to its destruction I Mr. FINCK. Now, Mr. Speaker, what have we got in the place of the old third section? We ha e a proposition which no intelligent man in this country believes will ever be ratified by three four lis of the States. I ask the Clerk to read the third section.

The Clerk read as follows:

No person flinll be a Senator or Representative in Con rrcv in elector of President and Vice President, 01 hold ;uiy office, ei vil or military, v, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath as a member of (,\mine--, or as an o h cor of the United States-, or as a member in her of any State Legislature, or as an executive or iudiei il officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against I lie same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. J hit Congress may by a vote of two* thirds of each House remove such disability.

Mr. KfN CK Now, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, whose f ivoiite third .action has been killed, proposes to accept in its stead the section just, read, which does not deprive the people of the States lately in rebellion of the right, to vote, but of the right to hold office. Well, it is very sweeping in its operation. What does it propose? Not only that members of Congress, Cabinet ministers, and judges ofllm Supreme Court of the United States, who voluntarily went into the rebellion, but that every man who has exercised judicial or legislative functions under the Federal Government or under the States themselves, who went into the rebellion giving aidand comfort, shall for ever be excluded from holding office, not only under the Federal Government, but under the State governments.

That, sir, is a sweeping clause. Everybody knows that thousands and hundreds of thousands of the people of these States who went into the rebellion and gave it aid and comfort did so iin oluutai ily. They were compelled to do so. Many of them were drafted. You do not except these men from the operation of this provision, but they are placed side by side with Davis, Breckinridge, Toombs, Slidell, and Mason, and are by this section excluded from holding any office, civil or military, either under the Federal or State governments. I say it is an outrage upon the people of those States who were compelled to give their aid and assistance in the rebellion.

Now. sir. every man knows tha; from the very moment the jurisdiction of the United States had been successfully resisted and ousted, so that it had no longer power to protect the people within the limits of the so called confederate power, these people were allowed by the laws of nations to yield obedience to that power which for the time being controlled them, and gave them protection. That doctrine has been established m Great Hi team for many generations, and has been recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States.

You propose to do what you have no right to do by law j you propose to make an ex post facto law by an amendment to the Constitution. You propose to inflict upon these people a punishment not known to the law in existence at the time any offense may have been committed, but after the offense has been committed; you propose a punishment which the Constitution and laws of the United States do not now provide. You propose to disfranchise men who have applied for in good faith and received pardons from the President.

Now what is the effect of a pardon? It is to make the man pardoned a new man; not merely as the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Stevens] would have it, to remove the punishment prescribed by law, but to remove all forfeitures and penalties. Such is the weight of authority of all the decisions of the courts without any exception.

And on this point, I will refer to some authorities, which I quoted on a former occasion in this House. Chief Justice Marshall, in the case of the United States vs. Wilson, 7 Peters, 102, speaking on this subject of pardons in England, said:

"As the power has been exercised from time immemorial by the Executive of that nation whose language is our language, and to whose judicial il institutions ours hour a close resemblance, wc adopt their pi im iples i respecting the operation and effect of a. pardon, and look into their books for the rules prescribing the manner in which it is to be used by the person who would avail himself of it."

In 7 Bacon's Abridgment, page 410, it is said:"

Tt was formerly doubted whether a pardon could do more t hantake away the punishment, leaving the crime and its disabling consequences unremoved. but it is now settled that a pardon, whether by the king or by act of Pat 1 Parliament, i removes not only the punishment but all the legal disabilities consequent on the ei one."

The doctrine is thus stated in 1 Bishop on Criminal I Law, 71o:

"The c effect of a full pardon is to absolve the party from all the le jal consequences of his crime, and of his eonvK Uon direct and collateral, including the punishment whether of imprisonment, pecuniary penalty, or whatever else the law provided."

Also, in o Bacon's Abridgment it is laid down:"

It seems agreed that a pardon of treason or felony, even after an attainder, so far clears the party from the infamy, and all other consequences thereof, that he rn <v have an action against any who shall afterward call him a traitor or felon, for the pardon makes him, a^ it were, a new man."

Blackstone says;

"A pardon may be pleaded in bar as at once dc lro ing the end and piupo sc of the indictment, by remitting the punishment which the prosecution is calculated to mthet."

Also:

"The effect of such a pardon by the king is to make the o lien dei anew man; to acquit him of all I! corporeal punishment and forfeitures annexed to that offense, for which he obtains his pardon."

Sir, the time has come for the exercise of the spirit of forgiveness, conciliation, and kindj ness, in order to restore fraternal relations i between the sections. Mr. Speaker, I am not only opposed to this third section, but i am at this time, in the present condition of the country, opposed to all amendments to the Constitution.

But the distinguished gentleman from Petms\ Ivan i a is a I afraid that power may pass from the hands of his party, and that Democrats may again be in the majority on this floor.

Sir, I believe the time will soon come when the power shall have passed from the radicals who have abused it, and this Government be unco more administered by that glorious old party which administered it so long and so wisely, and under which this nation advanced in greatness and glory without a parallel in history. Gentlemen are accustomed to speak in terms of derision of the Democratic party. Sir, it will survive their assaults. Yes, survive to take charge of and administer this Government again. To heal the wounds which have been inflicted upon the country; to bind closer the bonds of the Union 5 to gather once more around the common altar of the country, in friendship and patriotic devotion, the Representatives of all the States. Gentleman would do well not to forget that the Democrats of these twenty five States, in 1864, polled eighteen hundred thousand votes. And they should not forget that to day perhaps, these eighteen hundred thousand men have, by accessions of conservative men. swelled into an actual majority of the voters of these twenty five States.

But, Mr. Speaker, whatever their numbers may be, they are men who have as much interest in the honor, the glory, and prosperity of this country as any other equal number of men within the limits of the .Republic. They are to day as they have always been, devoted to the Union of these States; and, by the blessing of Heaven, they are determined to maintain that, Union, and the Constitution which preserves it, against the assaults of all, whether they come from the North or the South.

Mr. SPALDING. Mr. Speaker, I shall ever consider it the crowning honor of my life that I was permitted, as a humble member of the Thirty Eighth Congress, to record my vote in favor of that amendment to the Constitution of the United States which has made our whole country, the United States of America, emphatically "the land of the free" as it is confessedly "the home of the brave." And I hope that I may be permitted this day to give one other vote which shall be among ihc richest legacies 1 can transmit to my children.

Sir, 011 the 5th day of January last it fell to my lot to address this House in Committee of the Whole. At the close of my remarks on that occasion, 1 ventured to state a number of propositions which I supposed would satisfy my constituency in this business of reconstruction. Among those propositions was one to" amend the Constitution of the United States in respect to apportionmentof Representatives; and direct, taxes among the several States of the Union, in such manner that 'people of color' shall not be counted with the population making up the ratio, except it be in States where they are permitted to exercise the elective franchise." Among the provisions of the amendment to the Constitution now reported by the committee I find otic substantially covering the same ground. I say, as an individual, that I would more cheerfully give my vote if that provision allowed all men of proper age whom we have made free to join in the exercise of the right of suffrage in this country. But if I cannot obtain all that I wish, 1 will go heartily to secure all we can obtain.

Again, sir, I said," Insert a provision in the Constitution prohibiting the repudiation of the national debt, and also prohibiting the assumption by Congress of the rebel debt 1 That is also incorporated among the provisions reported from the committee and acted upon by the Senate.

I also said. 11 Provide in the Constitution that no person who has at any time taken up arms against the United States shall ever be admitted to a seat in the Senate or House of Representatives of Congress." The joint committee and the Senate have adopted a provision which is better by far than the one I proposed; I shall most cordially vote in favor of it.

I have been told that perhaps the close of the third section might be open to misapprehension and misconstruction. I desire very briefly to give my view of that question, as one given to the construing of laws and constitutions by practice and education. The last clause of that section is as follows:

But Congress may, by a vote of two thirds of each House, remove f such disability.

Now, it has been claimed by some that this would put it into the power of two thirds of each branch of Congress to annul this amendment of the Constitution after it shall have been adopted. I say that such never could be the construction put upon this provision by any coiiTt under the light of the sun. The section reads ICC__„,_., under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State Legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the s nne or given aid and comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress in may, by a vote of two thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Remove what disability? The personal disability in each individual case, and not to remove the provision of the Constitution itself, which is to stand for all time.

1 am satisfied to take this proposed amendment as it is. I take it from the first word of the joint resolution to the last syllable of the proposed amendment; and I give to the whole a hearty "amen," and I trust that the vote this day will show that all the Union members of this House here present are actuated by the same sentiments which now inspire my bosom.

Mr. HARDING, of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, in the very limited time allowed me on this occasion I propose to call the attention of the House more particularly to the fourth section of the proposed amendment to the Constitution of the United States. That section begins with the enunciation of a very sound and wholesome principle. It declares that•• the validity of the public debt, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."

Possibly it might have been better never to have mentioned this question at all. 'I The sacred character of the public debt ought, never to be called in question. It would have been well if no man had anticipated that the time could ever arrive when the United States would repudiate its public debt. While, therefore, 1 give my hearty sanction to that proposition T desire specially to call the attention of the House to the remaining clause of the same section. The first clause is ample, but the last member of the section operates in the nature of a proviso, limiting and restraining the preceding language, and amounting to direct and open 'repudiation. The clause upon which I base this assertion is the following:

But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave, but all such debts, obligations, and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Now, sir, this is an open repudiation of a solemn statute of this Congress. I ask the Clerk to read a portion of the twenty fourth section of an act approved February j 4 1801, entitled "An act, to amend an act for enrolling and calling out the national forces."

The Clerk read as follows:

"That all able-bodied male colored persons between the ages twentvandfoity forty-five years, resident the United States, shall be enrolled according to the provisions of this act, and of the net to which this is an amendment, and form a. part of the national foi ces; and when a slave of a loyal master shall be drafted and mustered into the service of the United States, his master shall have n certificate thereof, and thereupon such slave shall be free; and the bounty of .S100, now payable by law for each drafted man, shall be paid to the person to whom such drafted [>':i or, was owing service or labor at the time of his muster into the service of the United States. The Secretary of War shall appoint a, commission in en each of the slave States represented in Congress, charged to award to each loyal person to whom !l colored volunteer may owe service a just compensation, not exceeding :>>00 for each such colored volunteer, payable out of the fund derived from commutations; and every such colored volunteer, on being mustered into the service, shall bo free. And in all cases where men of color have been heretofore enlisted, or have volunteered in the military service of the United States, all the provisions of this act, so far as the pay of the bounty and compensation are provided, shall, he equally applicable as to those who may be hereafter recruited."

Mr. HARDING, of Kentucky. It will be observed that this proposed constitutional amendment provides that "all debts, obligations, and claims' for the loss or emancipation of any slaves" shall be held illegal and void." But the provision of the act of which has just been read, provides in so many words that a loyal man whose slave may have been drafted shall receive a bounty of $100 that at the time such slave is drafted the master shall receive a certificate, upon which he shall draw the money. The next clause provides that the owner of a slave volunteering in the military service of the United States—for at that period of the war it was of great importance to encourage volunteering—shall receive compensation not exceeding $300.

I care but little about this question except for the principle involved. We in Kentucky have suffered losses and are prepared to suffer losses. But I present this question as a question o f good faith. The Government has given this pledge to the owners of slaves who volunteered or were drafted into the Army of the United States; and it is now proposed that this pledge shall be disregarded and set at naught. Gentlemen may say that this principle of making compensation for slaves is all wrong; but, sir, the law itself declares that it is a "just compensation." The language of the act is:" The Secretary of War shall appointa commission in each of the lh ve States represented in Congress, charged to award to each loyal person to whom a colored volunteer may owe service a just compensation, not exceeding $'600 for each such colored volunteer."

And then the act goes on and designates the very fund out of which this compensation shall be paid—the fund derived from commutations. Here, then, is a vested right acquired under a law passed by this' Congress to encourage volunteering and to recruit the national forces. By this act the. faith of the nation is pledged that every loyal owner whose slave may have volunteered or been drafted into the military service of the United States shall receive what Congress then termed a "just compensation not exceeding SOW)." Yet by the constitutional amendment now before us it is proposed to repudiate this solemn pledge of the nation s faith.

Now, sir, it is well to be a little cautious on this subject of repudiation. We make no threats on our part. We denounced the sentiment and the very idea of repudiation, but here this very article which proposes to declare that the public debt shall be held inviolably sacred contains a clause which in direct and open terms proposes an utter repudiation of that very law which provided for nothing but "just compensation."

Under the section to which I have referred commissioners were appointed in Maryland and Delaware, and progressed to some extent with their work; but in Missouri and Kentucky no commissioners have yet been appointed. It is now proposed that this public debt—a debt of record, acknowledged I to be just and valid— shall be repudiated. Do you suppose, sir, that good faith can be thus violated, and those who commit this violation escape in the future all consequences of their act? If you stir up a hornet's nest like this, may j you not be stung by and by'.' The act which this Congress proposes to do is palpably unjust, Congress itself being the judge, and this proposed amendment being the test.

There is no evasion. It is an open and direct attempt at repudiation. I ask, sir, whether there is any man from Missouri, Maryland, Delaware, or Kentucky who will stultify himself by going for this amendment when It repudiates a recogni ed debt on the part of these States. Dare you set an example of repudiation? If you do can you ever complain, should it become the mad cry throughout the country? If you give the example can you complain when it comes to be followed? The people willsay, when repudiation takes place, they are only following your own example. Do you suppose in the West, do you suppose in Missouri. Delaware, Maryland, and Kentucky, with all the burdens they have had to bear during the war, they are going to be tributary to the northern and eastern States? Do you suppose they will continue to pay the heavy share imposed upon them for the public debt when they are denied a small compensation like this?

But as my time is limited, I will not dwell further on that point. I warn gentlemen to pause before they set such an example. You are in power now, triumphantly so, but your actions since you have been here seem to show you are not satisfied that you are going to continue in power. Set an example like this, and can you complain of repudiation afterward?

In regard to this constitutional amendment a great many things might be said. It is provided in the first section that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject "to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

And the last section provides that Congress shall h ve power to enforce by appropriate legislation the provisions of this article. This at once transfers all powers from the State governments over the citizens of a State to Congress. You will see that it is only a preparation for an Interminable conflict between the Federal and State jurisdictions. We know what the result of this will be, for we have already seen it tested. Will not Congress then virtually hold all power of legislation over your own citizens and in defiance of you?

But how does this agree with the memorable language of the Chicago platform, which declares 111 so many words that" the right of each State to order and control its own domestic affairs according to its own judgment exclusively is essential to that balance .of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend?" This amendment Is in direct contravention of that platform, because it transfers to Congress from the States all power of control over their own citizens. Let me tell you, you are preparing for revolutions after revolutions. They may be peaceful, and I hope they will. I warn you there will be no peace in this country until each State be allowed to control its own citizens. If you take that from them what care I for the splendid l machinery of a national Government? My constituents are able to judge of their own wants, but you propose to take this power from them and to transfer it to Congress, and to let Congress judge of their wants and what legislation should be enacted for their government.

I think I should be sustained by high authority if I were to announce that this amendment is a mere political platform, and that it is not approved by many who will vote for it, because they do not believe it ought to pass. It is a mere platform upon which the party is to go before the country to fight, the political battles of next fall. I should have high authority if I w ore to say that those who vote for these constitutional amendments were opposed to them, and that they are about to go before the country with them masked and veiled in hypocrisy and deceit. We have heard from the gentle man just now, in regard to the third section, that the heart and core of the whole matter is gone.

But further than that. The Senator [Mr. SifEitMAx] who was referred to by the gentleman who first addressed you to day set out in his speech by saying;

"T shall detain the Senate but for a moment to explain the reasons for the vote 1 shall give m opposition to what is my own deliberate judgment on the question now pending."

"This proposition is simple, plain, and obvious; and yet under the necessity in which wc are now placed, I shall feel called upon to vote against it. I And then, after making further comments, I he uses this language in regard to the amend-! meiit which he is going to vote against:"

That is a plain and obvious principle, and if that j principle was adopted, the southern States would feel i no local jealousy. They could not feel any." I,.'<.•}••'• J. s s "Although my opinion is as clear as it canbeupon ;i any subject that this amendment is right m itself, Both branches of it, yetas we were compelled to unite on some measure— and we must all yield some of our opinion? upon various questions involved— there are five sections in this proposed article feel bound to vote against this amendment offered by the Senator from Wisconsin, though in mj' judgment it wanfd do more than any other to heal the difficulties es by which we are surrounded."

There is an open confession that he is about to vote against an amendment which he entertains no doubt would do more to heal oaf difficulties than anything else

Now, sir, no man can excuse himself for a thing of that kind; and -while I admire the honesty of his confession, that he is doing it for party and political purposes, yet I utterly detest the odious principle that he avows for mere party purposes.

I ask the attention of the House to an extract, from another speech, and, mark you, I am not now offering you" "copperhead" testimony. The extract is from a speech made by one of your great northern lights, the celebrated Wendell Phillips. I ask the Clerk to read it.

The Clerk road as follows:

41 Mr. Phillips hoped the Senate s amendment of the reconstruction plan would meet with an ignominious defeat, and that Massachusetts would reject it. He would welcome every Democrat and copperhead vote to help its defeat. He would sjo a step further and said,! hope that the Republican party, if it goes to the polls next fall on this basis, will be defeated. If this i is the only thing that the party has to offer, it deserves defeat. The Republican party to day seeks only to save its life. God grant that it may lose it 1" a s i r* i 1 -1

"The Republicans l"> to the people in deceit, and hypocrisy, with their faces masked and their convictions hid; 1 hope to God they will be defeated! I want another serenade, not only to uncover the hidden sentiments of a Cabinet, but to smoke out Iho United States Senate, that we may see how many of them i an o bv the side of Sumner, Ben. Wade, Judge Kelley, and Thad. Stevens."

Mr. HARDING, of Kentucky Ay, sir, some of iho men named there have since given way and fallen, and are no longer on Phillips s loy il list. As I said, sir, 1 am not reading southern testimony, or the testimony of copperheads; but from this great northern light, the man who has done more for the Republican party than any other man in the country. He was raised among them; he has affiliated with them; and he cannot be deceived as to their purposes. He charges that this Republican party is going before the country wearing a mask of hypocrisy, with its visage masked, and that its object is not to amend the Constitution, but, a s Senator Sherman sayti, to save the life of the Republican party; and he says, "God grant they may lose it!" Now, sir, 1 cannot call in question such authority as this. He must know what lie is talking about, and[ have had read to you what he. says.

Here the hammer fell. J

Air. HTK\" K NS I now, sir, move the previous question.

The previous question was seconded and the main question ordered.

KNUOIJ BO nn L A Nil RESOLUTION SIGNED.

Mr. TROWBRIDGE, from the Committee on Enrolled Bills, reported that the committee had examined and found truly enrolled an :iet (S. No. 3 K for the relief of Mrs. Abigail Ryan, and joint resolution (S. R. No. oil respecting bounties to colored soldiers, and the pensions, bounties, and allowances to their heirs; when the Speaker signed the same.

RKCON STKUC nOX— AGAIN

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to detain the House long. A few words will suffice.

We may, perhaps, congratulate the. House and the country on the near approach to completion of a proposition to be submitted to the people for the admission of an outlawed community into the privileges and advantages of a civilized and free Government.

When I say that we should rejoice at such completion, I do not thereby intend so much to express joy at the superior excellence of the scheme, as that there is to be a scheme—a scheme containing much positive good, as well, I am bound to admit, as the omission of many •better things.

In my youth, in my manhood, in my old age, I had fondly dreamed that when any fortunate chance should have broken up for awhile the foundation of our institutions, and released us from obligations the most tyrannical that ever man imposed in the name of freedom, that the intelligent, pure and just men of this Republic, true to their professions and their consciences, would have so remodeled all our institutions as to have freed them from every vestige of human oppression, of inequality of rights, of the recognized degradation of the poor, and the superior caste of the rich. In short, that no distinction would be tolerated in this purified Republic but what arose from merit and conduct. This bright dream has vanished "like the baseless fabric of a vision." I find that we shall be obliged to be content with patching up the worst portions of the ancient edifice, and leaving it, in many of its parts, to be swept through by the tempests, the frosts, and the storms of despotism.■

Do yon inquire why, holding these views and possessing some will of my own, I accept so imperfect a proposition? I answer, because I live among men and not among angels; among men as intelligent, as determined, and as independent as myself, who, not agreeing with me, do not choose to yield their opinions to mine. Mutual concession, therefore, is our only resort, or mutual hostilities.

We might well have been justified in making renewed and more strenuous efforts for a better plan could we have had the cooperation of the Executive. With his cordial assistance the rebel States might have been made model republics, and this nation an empire of universal freedom. But he preferred "restoration" to" "reconstruction. lie chooses that the slave States should remain as nearly as possible in their ancient condition, with such small modifications as he and his prime minister should suggest, without any impertinent interference from Congress. He anticipated the legitimate action of the national Legislature, and by rank usurpation erected governments ill the conquered provinces; imposed upon them institutions in the most arbitrary and unconstitutional manner; and now maintains them as legitimate governments, and insolently demands that they shall be« represented in Congress on equal terms with loyal and regular States.

'To repress, this tyranny and at the same time to do some justice to conquered rebels requires caution. 'The great danger is that the seceders may soon overwhelm the loyal men in Congress. The haste urged upon us by some loyal but. impetuous men; their anxiety to embrace the representatives of rebels; their ambition to display their dexterity in the use of the broad mantle of charity; and especially the danger arising from the' unscrupulous use of patronage and from the oily orations of false prophets, famous for sixty day obligations and for protested political promises, admonish us to make no further delay.

A few words will suffice to explain the changes made by the Senate in the proposition which we sent them.

The first section is altered by defining who are citizens of the United States and of the States. This is an excellent amendment, long needed to settle conflicting decisions between the several States and the United States. It. declares this great privilege to belong to every person born or naturalised in the United States. The second seel ion has received but slight alteration. I wish it had received more. It contains much less power than I could wish; it has not half the vigor of the amendment which was lost in the Senate. It or the proposition offered by Senator Wade would have worked the enfranchisement of the colored man in half the time.

The third section has been wholly changed by substituting the ineligibility of certain high offenders for the disfranchisement of all rebels until 1870.

This 1 cannot look upon as ail improvement. It opens the elective franchise to such '1 as the States choose to adifiit. In my judgment it endangers the Government of the country, both State and national; and may give the next Congress and President to the reconstructed rebels. With their enlarged basis of representation, and exclusion of the loyal men of color from the ballot-box, I see no hope of safety unless in the prescription of proper enabling acts, which shall do justice to the freedmen and enjoin enfranchisement as a condition precedent

The fourth section, which renders inviolable the public debt and repudiates the rebel debt, will secure the approbation of all but traitors. The fifth section is unaltered.

You perceive that while I see much good in the proposition I do not pretend to bo satisfied with it. And yet I am anxious for its speedy adoption, for 1 dread delay. The danger is that before any constitutional guards shall have been adopted Congress will be flooded by rebels and rebel sympathizers. Whoever has mingled much in deliberative bodies must have observed the mental as well as physical nervousness of many members, impelling them too often to injudicious action. Whoever has watched the feelings of this House during the tedious months of this session, listened to the impatient whispering of some and the open declarations of others; especially when able and sincere men propose to gratify personal predilections by breaking the ranks of the Union forces and presenting to the enemy a ragged front of stragglers, must be anxious to hasten the result and prevent the demoralization of our friends. Hence, I say, let us no longer delay; take what we can get now, and hope for better things in further legislation; in enabling acts or other provisions.

I now, sir, ask for the question.

The SPEAKER The question before the House is on concurring in the amendments of "the Senate; and as it requires by the Constitution a two thirds vote, the vote will be taken by yeas and nays.

Mr. DEFREES. I ask the consent of the House to print some remarks upon this question, which I have not had an opportunity of delivering.

No objection was made, and- leave was granted. [The speech will be found in the Appendix.]

Mr. WRIGHT. I ask the same privilege. No objection was made, and leave was granted. [The speech will be found in the Appendix.]

The joint resolution as amended by the Senate is as follows; Joint resolution proposing nil amendment to the

Constitution of the United States. liemlticd bv the Senate and limine of Representatives of the United S tatei of Amei iea in Conr resi assembled, (two thirds of both Houses concurring J That the following article be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which, when ratified by three fourths of said Legislatures, shall be valid as part of the Constitution, namely:

Article—.

Sr o 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, mid subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are eiti cns of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which slni ll abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the In '.vs.

Sec. Representatives shall be apportioned anions the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the ri ht to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a. State, or the membel s of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens tweniy one years of ago ill such State. Sec. .3, jNo person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath as a. member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as' a, member of any State Legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Sec. 4. Thevalidityof thepubHcdcbt oftheUnited States, authorized by law, itK ludtmr debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations, and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Sec. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

The question was put on concurring with the amendments of the Senate; and there were— yeas 120, nays 32, not voting 82; as follows: YEAS—Messrs. Alley, Allison, Ames, Delos II. Ashley, James M. Ashley, Baker, Baldwin, Banks, Barker, Baxter, Beaman, Bidwell, Bingham, Blaine, Boutwell, Bromwcll, Buckland, Bundy, Header W. Clarke, Sidney Clarke, Cobb, Conkling, Cook, Cullom, Darling, Davis, Dawes, Defrees, Delano, Dodge, Donnelly, Driggs, Dumont, Eckley, Eggleston, Eliot, 3 Farnsworth, Farquhar, Ferry, Garfield, Grinnell, Griswold, Hale, Abner C. Harding, Hart, Hayes, Henderson, Higby, Holmes, Hooper, Hotchkiss. Asahel W. Hubbard, Chester D. Hubbard, John II. Hubbard, James It. Hubbell, Jenckes, Julian, Kelley, Kelso, ICetcham, Kuykcndall, Laflin, Latham, George V. Lawrence, Loan, Longyear, Lynch, Marvin, McClurg, MeKee, McRuer, Mercur, Miller, Moorhcad, Morrill, Morris, Moulton, Myers, Newell, O Neill Orth, Paine, Perham, Phelps, Pike, Plants, Pomeroy, Price, "William H Randall Raymond, Alexander H. Rice, John H. Rice, Sawyer, Schenck, Scofield, Shellabarger, Sloan, Smith, Spalding. Stevens, Stilwell, Thayer, Francis Thomas, John L. Thomas, Trowbridge, Upson, Van Aernam, Robert T. Van Horn, Ward, Warner. Henry D. Washburn, William n. Washburn, Welker, Wentworth, Whaley, Williams, James I)'. Wilson, Stephen i\ Wilson, Windom, and the Speaker—120.

NAYS—Messrs. Ancona, Bergen, Boyer, Chanler, Coffroth, Dawson, Denison, Eldridge, Finck, Glossbrenner, Grider, Aaron Harding, Hogan, Edwin N, Hubbell, James M Humphrey Kerr Le Blond, Marshall, Niblack, Nicholson, Samuel J. Randall, Ritter, Rogers, Ross, Sitgreaves, Strouse, Tabor, Taylor, Thornton, Trimble, Winfield, and Wright—32.

NOT VOTING—Messrs. Anderson, Benjamin, Blow, Brandegee, Broomall, Culver, Doming, Dixon, Goodyear. Harris, Hill, Demas Hubbard, Hulburd, James Humphrey, Ingersoll, Johnson, Jones, Kasson, William Lawrence, Marston McCullough Mclndoe, Noell, Patterson. Radford, Rollins, Rousseau, Shanklin, Starr, Burt Van Horn, Elihu B. Washburne, and W oodbridge 32

Tlie SPEAKER. Two thirds of both Houses having concurred in the jointresolution (II. R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the joint resolution has passed.

During the roll call on the foregoing vote,

Mr. KELLEY said: I desire to announce that Mr. Broomall, and Mr. Washburne of Illinois, are paired with Mr. Shanklin upon this question.

Mr. LAFLIN said: I wish to announce that my colleague, Mr. Van' Horn, is paired upon this question with Mr. Goodyear.

Mr. ANCONA said: My colleague, Mr. Johnson', is absent on account of sickness, and is paired upon this question with Mr. Rollins and Mr. Marston, of New Hampshire.

Mr. DARLING said: I desire to state that my colleague, Mr. James Humphrey, is detained at home by sickness. If present he would have voted in the affirmative.

Mr. WINFIELD said: My colleague, Mr. Radford, is unavoidably detained from his seat. If hero he would have voted against the Senate amendment.

Mi-. ASHLEY, of Ohio, said: My colleague, Mr. Lawrence, has been called home in consequence of the death of his father. If present he would have voted "ay."

Mr. COBB said: Mr. McIndoe is detained from his seat by illness. If here he would vote in the affirmative.

Mr. MOULTON said: My colleague, Mr. Ingersoll, has gone home under leave of absence from the House.

Mr. HART said: Mr. Hubbard, of New York, is absent on account of death in his family. If he had been here he would have voted "ay."

Mr. WASHBURN, of Indiana, said: My colleague Mr. Hill, is absent by leave of the House. If here he would have voted in the affirmative.

Mr. ELDRIDGE. I desire to state that if Messrs. Brooks and Voor nees had not been expelled, they would have voted against this proposition. [Great laughter.]

Mr. SCHENCK. And I desire to say that if Jeff. Davis were here, he would probably also have voted the same way.' [Renewed laughter.]

Mr. WENTWORTH. And so would Jake Thompson.

The result of the vote having been announced as above recorded,

Mr. STEVENS moved to reconsider the vote by which the amendments of the Senate were concurred in; and also moved to lay the motion to reconsider on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

The SPEAKER. The House is now engaged in executing the order of the House to proceed to business upon the Speaker s table.