June 14, 1864 (2)

Let me call the' attention of the House to the only limitation in the instrument; and they are referred to this fifth article, where the limitation is to be found; it provides" that no amendment which may be made prior to the year 1808 shall in any manner affect the first ami fourth clauses in the ninth section of the firstarticle." But, sir, this Constitution is entirely silent with reference to all other portions, including even that which provides that fugitives from labor shall be returned to service. Upon this the Constitution is silent, and even before 1808 it could have been amended, with the exception above quoted, by pursuing the course laid down in the fifth article. Now, sir, what is there in the proposition contained in this resolution? It is that a certain amendment, specifying it in so many words, shall be submitted to the different State Legislatures for their action, and if the Legislatures of three fourths of the States of the Union ratify it it becomes a portion of the Constitution of theUnued States. And, sir, that is a proposition appealing to State sovereignty that members upon the other side of the House dare not allow to be submitted and acted upon by those high constitutional deliberative bodies.

But, Mr. Speaker, I will not dwell longer upon that point. It is sufficient that we simply propose what the State Legislatures ratify and make apart of the Constitution, or else render a nullity. Sir, this amendment, if it should become a portion of the Constitution, strikes at the root of the terrible evil that is now piercing the very vitals of the nation, whose roots of bitterness have sunk so deep that they are almost drinking up the life blood of this Government. Men talk upon the other side as they did in the palmy days of peace, when nothing but the busy hum ofindustry could be heard on every side, and when slavery lay like a lamb, submissive to every law. But now, sir, when it has aroused and become venomous, and, full of the spirit of the tiger, draws the sword and makes no distinction in its wrath, and is feasting upon the very life of this nation, we hear the same songs in this Hall that we used to hear in the days of peace, showing how utterly heartless men must be, having no blood of patriotism m their veins.

We are told that the institution of slavery in the rebellious States has rights under this Government. The rights of slavery! What right, m God s name, has the institution that has now two or three hundred thousand men arrayed m arms against the Government? Is this bold effrontery to be weighed as argument, and are we yet to hear about the rights ofslavery? It has culminated in concentrating its whole power against this Government. What right has it which this Government is bound to respect?

What was its morale, sir? In early days as an institution it was humble and unpretending. While it was an institution in the colonies it had DO political power. The charm of this whole institution has been in the political power that it has exercised. But, sir, as we emerged from dependents as colonies and became an independent nation, the fathers who lived in its very midst trod very cautiously over the ground. Why, sir, what was its first exercise of power? When Virginia, which was then a slave State, ceded the Northwest Territory to the Union, it demanded that slaveryshould be prohibited forever in that Territory, and the power was admitted to rest in Congress topiohibit the institution from ever going there while it was a Territory. Such was the morale ol slavery in its early days, so far as the exercise of political power was concerned. But sir it increased in magnitude and in proportions, and became interwoven with our whole system. It was held in early times to be an evil, but a necessary one; it was impossible to throw it aside then, but it was hoped and believed by those who were helping to sustain it for the time being that it would wear away and finally disappear.

But, sir, as it increased in power, so it acquired political ascendency; it spread over a vast extent of country; slavery was the rule and freedom the exception, and the poor whites under its shadow were insignificant in comparison with master or even bondsman. Slave labor became profitable; it constituted the great labor force, and, what was still sweeter than all, it gave such a political ascendency that it enabled a few States and a comparatively few white people to control the Government. X declare, sir, for myself, and no man is responsible for what I say but myself, that no Government is republican in form, body, or spirit, that tolerates such an institution as slavery. I lay it down as a self evident truth to my mind, and if every other- man would take the same ground there could be no such institution in existence under the Constitution as we now have it. But as I am probably alone here in that, view, and as that construction would not be given by other men, I prefer that the Constitution be changed m the respect that is contemplated by this resolution. For, sir, I would not be willing to trust all men with the construing of the Constitution in its many provisions, for fear self interest and love of personal aggrandizement would influence in construction instead of a love of equal justice. It has been claimed in latter years that slavery* is an institution sanctioned by divine law and by the word of God. Ah, sir, those who made that claim did not read the Scriptures very faithfully, for they would have found it said even in the Old Testament that when a servant escapes from his master he shall not be returned to him again; he shall let him go free:

"Thou sliult not deliver unto his master the servant which \a «f«cnpcd from his master unto thee.

Ho shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it Ufceth him best: thou shall not oppie s lun.'>*

And over and above all, they forgot the new covenant, whose Founder told the world that He came to "fulfill the law."

But, sir, it will do for old fogy exploded divines to dwell upon that subject and show the validity and divine origin of slavery—for such men ay the one who was voted for for Chaplain of this House (Bishop Hopkins) at the commencement ot this sos ion The evils of the institution and the t fleets resulting from those evils are too numerous to mention m a brief hour speech. I have declared that the institution is anti-republican, and that no Government which tolerated it. could be in form, body, or spirit a republican Government. Why, sir, men have stood upon this floor, prior to the rebellion, who represented States that had more slaves than free white inhabitants, and 1 instance South Carolina as one of those States. Those slaves have no political or civil rights, and yet every five of them are equal to three white persons, giving a representation on this floor to four hundred thousand slaves, not one of whom has in the State or nation a voice or a vote, and who can enjoy no civil or political lights any more than the horse and ox which his master owns. Two hundred thousand white inhabitants and five hundred thousand slaves—equal to three hundred thousand whites —would give five hundred thousand inhabitants to be represented in the State; and, under the iu e giving one member of Congress to every one hundred thousand inhabitants, that would give to a State having only two hundred thousand! white inhabitants five Representatives on this floor. That is not republicanism, sir. That is! unti republicanism it is the very worst kind of a Government imaginable. It isdcspotism to the extent of the slave representation cruel, brutal despotism.

Mr. Speaker, the people of the South have been extremely cunning in the argument of this question whenever it "has been raised. Whenever the spirit of free discussion has arisen, and the question of slavery has been debated, they ■who were in favor of the abolition of slavery were told that they were m favor of giving to the slaves the civil rights that while people had, the politics! rights, and not only that but the social rights. The latter point was pressed with more vehemence than all the others. And while they havepressed that as an argument why slavery should not be annihilated, the secret with the South in holding fast to slavery has been the political power which it has given them in this Government. There is the charm; there is the fascination. It is power, political power. That is what they have held to.

The member from NewYork who lastaddressed the House [Mr. Fernando Wood] said a most beautiful thing, but, sir, he put it to extremely wrong use: "The best Government is that which governs least." I agree with him in the truism. The Government that does away with slavery as an institution does away with the mostinfamous system of government that was ever instituted on God s earth. It does away with a system which makes the man who domineers a cruel taskmaster. It does away with a system which perverts the judgment of him as master and panders to the basestpropensities of the human heart. It is a perpetual, never dying despotism. And I will join with the gentleman from New York, [Mr. Fernando Wood,] and all others who will, in perpetuating all over the country that truism which he has uttered. I would have the. voice of freedom and free discussion and the song of freedom go South, and the other song of the lash and the clanking of chains should recede as these two advanced. Such would be the consequence of carrying out the truism which the gentleman has published here to day

Sir, I was speaking of slaves. They are property. They are held as such; that is, when we acknowledge the institution as a legal and rightful one between man and man. But I deny that, in right and justice, such an institution can exist. But, sir, the argument is that in States the institution exists. If it be so, human beings are property; and the five hundred thousand slaves are nothing but property in the estimate as between man and man. And yet, sir, when the Representative leaves his State and comes into this Hall, thefivi* hundred thousand slaves in his Stale count as three hundred thousand inhabitants, and the State sends here three members, on property owned in human beings over whom they exercise absolute control as property, whom they can buy and sell. But here they stand and talk about the. rights of freemen, the rights of free speech, the sovereignty of States, and the rights of their constituents. It is an institution, sir, which has its pens where humanity is herded like cattle and has its block in market where human beings are bought and sold. And that is claimed to be republicanism. It is a republicanism, sir, which is born of hell, not of earth, or of above the earth, ft is an institution which is now at war with this Government, and which will destroy it if it can. And svo on this side of the House propose to do away with it m the way poinledout by the Constitution, or so to amend the Constitution that it cannot exist when peace is restored; and they cavil at it on the other side of the House. That shows, Mr. Speaker, how hollow theirargunvuHs are and how insincere their purposes and pretenses.

Now, sir, as to the political power exercised by this institution. Slavery wished that there should be a line of latitude between freedom and slavery; and it gave us the Missouri compromise m 18 20 It was legitimate, below a certain line, to hold slaves; above it it was unlawful. Great principles of human right were to be bounded by lines of latitude and longitude. I cannot enumerate all the opportunities it has sought to exercise power, and all the wrong it has done

But what has been done by the Government, under the dictation of the slave power, at certain well known periods.' In 1850 the State which I have the honor in part to represent upon this floor could not be admitted into this Union except through an infamous compromise. The fugitive slave law had to be tacked on and made a partof the bundle. I tell gentlemen on the other side of the House that the Congress then in session, and the Executive who occupied the presidential chair at that day, did more mischief, more toward bringing about the condition of things we have suffered and endured, and which we are now suffering in agony, than any one public act ever done in this country. It was the low, crouching, and mean subserviency of great political parties to the encroachments arrogance and aggressions of the slave power.

In 1854 the votaries of the slave power with few exceptions demanded that the Missouri compromise line should be obliterated, and that demand was yielded to. Some of the older and far seeing ones were fearful when that line was removed that free institutions and free labor in the struggle for supremacy would get the advantage of the slave power. And their fears were not without foundation.

The struggle in Kansas during the last Administration is an illustration of the fallacy of human judgment and human intention, for those men who desired the admission of Kansas as a slave State had the whole power of the Government to aid them. They had not only the civil but the military power to aid in subduing the people and bringing them to terms. It was all of no avail. When the Lecompton constitution came before Congress slavery sugared it all over in order to make it a sweet morsel and palatable to the throats of that people. They told them in the English bill, so infamous, that if they would accept that constitution they might come in as a State with what population they then had. Not only that, but that they should have all of the salt springs and five per cent, of the receipts of the sale of the public lands in their State. This was the bribe which they were offered to induce them to accept that constitution; and if Kansas should refuse the offer admission should be postponed until she had the population the census required. In 1858 after that turmoil in which the Lecompton constitution was attempted to be forced upon them, the people took n vote on it and refused to accept the humiliating imposition by an overwhelming majority. They became a free people and a free State. In that movement slavery was defeated. It has controlled political parties. Its power has been so great that all political parties have been compelled to bend the knee to it. In 1850, in the passage of the fugitive slave law, the two 2 great parties of the country, the Democratic and Whig, were represented in the infamous transaction. They joined their hands in infamous fellowship, a Democratic Congress passing it and a Whig Executive approving it. And in 1860 there was no political party that did not tolerate and acknowledge the status of this institution of slavery. There was not a national party that had a candidate for the Presidency butacknowledged the right to hold slaves as property in a State. It could have no footing unless it did so. The present Executive took his seat in the presidential chair with the recognition of thenghtof every State to have the institution of slavery inviolate by Federal action. And yet, sir, slavery arrogantly insisted that the Government was aggressive in its policy. In 1856 it demanded non intervention ,and in the Cincinnati convention nonintervention was made a part of its platform. In 1860, at Charleston, it demanded intervention, and because there was not a yielding and knocking under to that demand it divided the Democratic party, and ran its candidate upon that proposition. And then, notwithstanding the pledge of every party that the institution of slavery was a recognized institution of the different States whose State constitutions allowed its existence, and which every State government could have within its limits, it made war upon this Government for the reason that it would not acknowledge the grasping policy which it demanded.

And gentlemen argue here that we are waging war upon the South. It is a falsehood m fact, yet not intended as such, because some as good men as are here, men whom I know to be as collect ay can be upon this subject, still talk on this subject as though the Government was waging war upon the South.

Mr. Speaker, I commend to the attention of every member of this House for his perusal and study a report that was made in the Thirty Sixth Congress in the session of 1860 G1 It is the report of a select committee of five, appointed on the 9th of January, and to whom was referred the special messages of the President and sundry other papers. On the 28th of February, 1861, that committee submitted a report, and I will read from it an extract to be found upon page 3: SuJf pre crvation h the first law of a nation. The power to defend its implements of self pie etvatt m one of the clearest of all its powers. We cannot conceive of a nation without the power to build and defend forts and all implements of war within its own jurisdiction. And yet ssee asion claim* to have sei od within f sixty days, fourteen forts, eostini> 55 580 858 and mounting eleven hundred and twenty lour guns. These forts are not only held against the United States, but two others are closely besieged, and assault is every day threatened. The arsenals, thearm«;, the revenue cutters, the custom houses the post offices, tliu mints, the money, and even the hospitals* of the United States are seized and held with impunity. The operations ot commerce are impeded. Seven Status claim to have released themselves from all constitutional obligations; to have disrupted the Government, and formed a new and independent confederacy in the bounds of the United States, all in the name of secession; and yet we are mid secession is not only a peaceful but a constitutional remedy; as if the Constitution had provided for us own destruction by an inconsiderable fraction of the power that made it."

But, Mr. Speaker, it may be possible that some gentlemen upon this floor may question the veracity of that portion of the report, but those gentlemen will not question the veracity of what I am about to read, for it comes from one whom many of them loved at that time, and I do not know but their love still continues:

Even now the danger is upon us. In several of the States which have not yet seceded, the forts, arsenals, and magazines of the United States have been seized. This is by far the most serious step which has been taken since the commencement of the troubles. This public property has long been left without garrisons and troops for its protection, because no person doubted its security under the flag of the country in any State of the Union. Besides, our small Army has scarcely been sufficient to guard our remote frontiers against Indian incursions. The seizure of this property, from all appearances, has been purely aggressive, and not m resistance to any attempt to eoeiee a State or States to remain in the Union."

This is an extract from a special message sent to Congress by James Buchanan, and has his signature as President.

And this was signed on the 8th day of January, 1861, almost two months before his presidential term expired. .War! Talk about waging war. These villains were laying destruction across the pathway of the Government, seizing its property here and there, going in military array and doing it, threatening men if they did not yield, and yet we are told that this Government has been waging war against the South! That is as big a lie as the institution of slavery is itself. I call slavery the great lie of the age, got up by a body of men, while this is a simple he by individuals, and history will put the stamp upon it. But we are told further than that—and here is where men attempt to escape—that Abraham Lincoln gave strength to the rebellion by his proclamation. On the 1st day of January, 1863, President Lincoln issued his proclamation after giving a hundred days' notice, ample time for the rebel States to lay down their arms and come back into the Union and be as they were before they took up arms grace which none but the God of heaven would have given, and I doubt whether He would have given it.

Why, sir, the Opposition seek an excuse under that proclamation to withdraw their aid to the Government in this hour of its peril. Let me remind such of a little piece of history taken from the words of the vice president of the confederate States, and which has become a part of the history of that government. He says that the new government formed by them is based upon the institution of slavery as its foundation. Do gentlemen object to getting at the foundation and knocking it to pieces? Do they desire to haggle at the branches, and attack the trunk before they reach the foundation? Is that the way to destroy a system which has slavery as its foundation? There is a preferable mode. Strike at the foundation first, knock it out, and the superstructure will fall, and the whole mass will come crushing down. It is the best blow possible to be struck. Mr. Speaker, gentlemen who would avoid supporting the Government cry, "Oh, the proclamation!" The proclamation struck at the foundation. It struck at the root of the terrible aggression against this Government. It struck at the very vitality of it, and every man of sense and judgment knows it, and they only deny it for an excuse for not rendering aid to the Government.

Mr. Speaker, there never was a time when the proposition contained in this resolution and in this proposed amendment of the Constitution needed more the action of this body than now, at this time, during this session; and, sir, the States, by their Legislatures, should act upon it at their earliest sessions after it shall have passed this Congress. The Constitution should be adapted to the condition of the country where the noble men of the loyal States are giving up their lives and where they have given them up by thousands. Their bones are bleaching upon hundreds of battle fields They are drenching with their blood the soil over which they are moving with victory perching on their banners and killing out the roots of slavery so that it cannot exist; and we, as the legislative part of this Government, should be adapting the Constitution and all the laws as speedily as we can to the new condition of the country where our armies do march in triumph, so that we may never see nor feel again this power that has come so near being the end of this nation.

Mr. KALBFLEISCH. Mr. Speaker, 1 shall not attempt to wander over the road traveled by the gentleman .who preceded me, [Mr. Higby,] but will endeavor to take a common sense view of the subject, and in plain language strive to give expression to the sentiments entertain in regard to the proposition now before the House.

For the first time in the history of our country a serious attempt is about to be made to introduce a radical change in the Constitution under which we have enjoyed the greatest amount of earthly blessings ever vouchsafed to a nation. The question as to its propriety is therefore a grave one, beset with many perils, and its consideration should be approached with the greatest care and conducted with the most serious deliberation. Indeed, the necessity for such a change should first be made clearly manifest, and placed beyond all doubt, before its consideration at all should be allowed seriously to occupy our minds. The subject embraced in the proposed amendment to the Constitution, that of prohibiting involuntary servitude, or, in other words, slavery, in any State or Territory, is not a new one and for the first time agitated. It received the attention of the framers of that instrument, and was exhaustively debated and thoroughly considered by them. They were not unmindful of the fact that the time might arrive when it would require the greatest forbearance on the one side and the utmost caution on the other to avoid a crisis like that in which the nation is now plunged. They settled the distracting question for themselves by mutual concession on the part of conflicting interests and views, and then provided for the permanency of that settlement by the adoption of a clause in the Constitution providing that amendments to it should be made only with the assent of three fourths of the parties to the compact. They feared that at some future time an attempt might be made to tamper with the Constitution in' order to unjustly benefitormterfere with an especial interest or a particular section of country at the expense of another, and established what they believed to bo an impassable barrier to any such attempt. They sought to place the glorious result of their labors upon as it were a rock, against which the fluctuating, surging tides of evanescent popular majorities and the stormy waves of mere partisan strife should be impotent to endanger its permanence. And there in that firm position it has remained invulnerable, if not unassailable, to the present time, an illustration and embodiment of human wisdom the most sublime ever reared by the mind of man.

Revering the Constitution as I do, can it be wondered at that I should receive tile bare suggestion of amending it with any other than feelings of doubt and misgivhig, and that before I can give my assent to any proposition for its amendment even for real and apparent defects, still less for fancied ones, I must be clearly convinced that it is indispensable to the future wellbeing of the country? I must not only be satisfied that it will infallibly tend to restore peace to the country and harmony to the Union, but also that the present is the proper and most auspicious

•New Series No. 185. clous moment for its inauguration. In examining the proposition before us, with a view to satisfy my mind upon these points, it will be pertinentalso to inquire into the objects and motives of its advocates here—whether their real desire is the benefit of every section of the country, or only that of a particular locality coupled with the corrupt purpose of perpetuating the power of the party now administering the Government.

The advocates of the proposition to amend the Constitution have endeavored to show by various arguments that the country could not continue to prosper while slavery was permitted to exist in the Territories or States of the Union, and that therefore a clause prohibiting the holding of slaves within the borders of the Republic should be inserted in that illustrious and 'venerated instrument. How long, let me ask, is it since it was discovered that the country could not prosper under our Constitution? Why, but a few years since to preach such a doctrine would have subjected the party having the hardihood to do it to the scorn and contumely ofthe people. Even the noisiest abolition brawling fanatics, whether of the slightest tinge or of the darkest hue, have invariably acknowledged that the country was prosperous, at least up to and until the outbreak of the rebellion.

The absurdity of the argument that the proposed amendment to the Constitution is necessary to the prosperity of the country is so manifest that to me it seems almost absurd to attempt (seriously to refute it. It is either a crazy delusion or a wicked and willful falsehood on the part of those who promulgate it. No, sir; the prosperity of the country has been marred and its welfare affected, not by the legitimate operation of the Constitution, but by the efforts that have been made to interfere with and overthrow it. The continual intermeddling with and agitation of the subject of slavery by some of the people of the free States who had become frantic upon that question, and the use made of that frenzied state of mind by others of them in promoting thegratification of their inordinate desire for public office and political spoils, may well be regarded as among the primary causes that have hastened, if not produced, the unhappy condition in which we now find the country.

While the Constitution was respected and enforced, for three quarters of a century, we were happy and prosperous; and it was not until a miserable set of political charlatans sought to blind the people to their grasping for place and power by a false issue that this cry was raised that the instrument was defective and needed amendment. It was the production of the master minds of the age in which they lived, men who, if alive to day would be joyfully intrusted by the people with the task of leading the nation out of the calamities into which it has been plunged by the corrupt and incompetent imbeciles to whose hands the destinies of the country are now confided. Is it wise, under these circumstances, to discard their labors and teachings, and to attempt a change which may be sowing the seeds of our utter destruction. The fate of him who was well, took physic to make him better, and died inconsequence thereof is an apt illustration of thedangers of tampering with the Constitution, under the benign influences of which, heretofore, our national health has been so hearty and robust. It needs no physic, and least of all such as now offered us by political quacks and mountebanks, to improve our condition.

Where risks are but small in comparison with benefits anticipated, there perhaps may be justification in trying experiments, but. the riUc of altering one line, nay, even a single word of the Constitution, may involve us in consequences so fatal to the welfare and the liberties of the people that it would be worse than madness to attempt it. The alteration once commenced and the people made familiar with the idiyi of its mutability, and who can tell how soon other and more fancied grievances and wrongs, or even the reckless desire to pull down everything that bears upon it the least stamp of antiquity, now so prevalent among us, may cause other and more radical changes, until in the end, of the now solid and perfect structure which has stood the test of years, scarce a vestige will remain? The glorious work of the fathers of the Republic, the perfection of human wisdom as it has often been pronounced, may thus become a mere piece of patch work shaped and transformed at the will and caprice of the parties in power until at last there shall remain of it but a bundle of shreds and patches as a mournful reminder of its former greatness. God forbid that such a destiny shall await the American Constitution. 1 regard, sir, this proposition for an amendment of the Constitution but as a part of the scheming and agitation which resulted in the origin and success of the party now controlling the Government, and brought forward in the hope, vain I trust, of securing for it a new lease of power.

By grossly high coloring and unfairly exaggerating the evils of slavery, these politicians succeeded in exciting among the people a sentiment of blind enthusiastic sympathy for the negro, of which they artfully availed themselves as a stepping stone to place and power. 'And they now seek by appeals to the passions and prejudices of the people stimulated by the events of the war, and by misrepresentation and the raising of false issues, to perpetuate their hold of the position which by the means to which I have referred they have succeeded in obtaining'. This proposition to amend the Constitution for the benefit of the negro is, I repeat, but a new dodge in their game. The Democratic party are to be abused and maligned anew for daring to oppose them m their destructive career, and another agitation attempted to be excited, based upon the plea of justice to the negro.[ say their destructive career, and I believe I am fully warranted in using the expression, because notwithstanding all their vaunting professions of extreme patriotism and loyalty (the latter a phrase only properly appropriate m countries where monarchical Governments prevail) they have perpetrated many acts which history will pronounce to be subversive of the best interests of the nation and tending still further to widen the breach which wo have striven at the cost of hundreds of thousands of valuable lives and thousands of millions of treasure ineffectually to close.

What need, let me ask, have these politicians foran amendment of' the Constitution, for any object? Have they ever failed, when their purpose seemed to them to require it, to disregard it both in spirit and letter? if those who differ with me shall answer this in the negative, let them, if they aieable, wipe away the stain ofconfiscating lands, in clear violation not only of the spirit of the Constitution but of the only liberal construction that can be put upon it. Let them account for the disregard of its provisions in the numerous cases of arbitrary arrests, a power heretofore only exercised by military authority, under despotism, and the creation of which was never contemplated by our forefathers. Could the fiamers of our Magna Charta have foreseen that the time would ever arrive when it would be undertaken to suppress the publication of newspapers, and upon a pretext so frivolous as that put forth in the case of the World and the Journal of Commerce, they would have abandoned their work in despair. These are acts in violation of the Constitution, and which can only be perpetrated by means of military force. Let us hope that we shall have no more of them, and that we are not yet lost to all sense of patriotism and those feelings which animated our forefathers when they declared themselves a free and independent people, willing to stake their lives and sacred honors to maintain that declaration. Let us not become forgetful of their sacrifices and the boon they have conferred upon us, but resolve to continue with a steady and unfaltering step to travel the road they have marked out for us, and which, always pursued by the Democratic party, lias under their guidance conducted the Republic to happiness, glory, and renown.

A part of the game to retain power and control of the Government has been to misrepresent and vituperate the Democratic party. We are charged with opposing thetjrproposed change in the Constitution simply with a design to thwart the Government in its purposes and action, and to frustrate its efforts for the restoration of the Union. This is no new charge. The Democratic party have all along been accused by these political schemers of conduct tending to give aid and comfort to our enemies, and thereby assisting in destroying all hope of a restoration of the Union to its former proud stand among the nations of the earth, when its emblem of nationality was respected in every clime, the dread of tyrants and the star of hope of the oppressed. They are often in derision styled" copperheads," with intent to convey the idea of their favorable disposition to the so called southern confederacy and their opposition to our own Government. These charges and accusations need no retort nor defense. They fall harmless at the feet of the Democratic party. The hundreds of thousands of brave and patriotic members of that party who fill the ranks of our heroic armies, and whose remains are moldering beneath the battle fields of the war, and the pecuniary contributions of thousands of their brethren in civil life in behalf of the cause of the Union, suffice to show the proud position occupied by the Democratic party in this controversy. Their acts speak more eloquently than words, and the railing of the blatant babblers in the ranks of the Administration supporters will fail to blot or obscure the glorious record.

But here let me say that these aspersions upon and misrepresentation of the Democratic party, wanton and unjustifiable as they are, have tended more to the prolongation of the civil war than a casual observation would lead one to suppose. They have tended to encourage the rebels in holding out against a return to their allegiance and 111 persisting in their vain effort to establish ti Government of their own. This they have done by inducing them to believe that there was in the States adhering to the Union a party as powerful as is the Democratic party, sympathizing with their efforts and wishing them success. By conveying this impression and by the everlasting cries of copperhead, traitor, secessionist, and other opprobrious and lying epithets, of late so lavishly heaped upon the members of the Democratic party, the supporters of the Administration have, in my candid opinion, helped to prolong u war which should long ere this have been ended. And let mo ask, would it not bo a fair argument for the rebels to use to these would be pure patriots who are so denunciatory of the acts of their fellowcitizens who differ with them in opinion, should they, the rebels, say: "You admit that you are m favor of a Government selected by a majority of the governed, and you say that you believe the power of sovereignty is still vested in the people, and that they possess the right to delegate it to such of their number as a majority of them may select?" You will not deny this, and the rebelscontinuc:" You allege that the Democrats of the .North are copperheads, in favor of the government of one Jeff. Davis; in short, that they are secessionists in sentiment; if so, why do you war against us and condemn us as rebels? You must admit that combined we rebels and the copperheads, who, as you say, are in favor of our Government, constitute a large majority of the people North and South; therefore our 'rebellion, according to your own showing, is justifiable and becomes a revolution, because it is based upon a desire for a change of Government, which, according to the principle recognized by tus all, the majority of the people have an unquestioned right to make." This is the argument you put in the mouths of the rebels, and upon your own premises I imagine you would find it exceedingly difficult if not absolutely impossible to confute it.

Mr. Speaker, the language I have used may not bo as eloquent nor my arguments as clear and lucid as I could wish and as others more capable to the task might have given expression to; but I believe my idea of popular government will be understood. No one, I am sure, with the least particle of love for the Union inspiring him, can fail to see the harm done to its cause by our opponents, not only by their unceasing use of language unbecoming American citizens, but by the commission of acts which are disgraceful in the extreme. Certain it is that to charge the Democratic party with having brought about the evils under which the nation labors, and with aiding and abetting in their continuance, does not tend to promote the fraternal feeling which should prevail among us, especially at the present.

So much for this charge that the Democrats are the enemies of the Government. I acknowledge, sir, and here I hope I may not be misunderstood, that when I speak of the Government I mean the Government as distinct and different from the individuals who, for the time being, administer it. To further explain: I love and venerate the Government and the Constitution defining its powers, and 1 maintain a proper respect for the authorities elected or appointed under it; but I reserve the right to examine into their official conduct and to express my disapproval of their acts if they do not accord with my sense of propriety and justice, even though such acts maybe those of a constitutionally elected President. I say I claim the right to disapprove, as I do t f many of the official acts of Abraham Lincoln, the President of the United States. To this extent, no more, has the Democratic party sinned; and what sincere and candid friend of free speech can arraign them for that?

Having, Mr. Speaker, referred to these unfounded charges against the Democratic party, so far as I consider them worthy of notice, I desire somewhat to examine the claims of their opponents to all the political virtues which they so boastingly put forth. Let us see, also, whether these professions of desire to restore the Union are founded in truth or conceived in a genuine spirit of patriotism. They assert that the institution of slavery is the primary cause of this war, and that it should, therefore, be no longer allowed to exist. At first blush theassertion appears to have considerable force, and the consequence which they insist should attend seems to follow naturally enough. I deny, however, slavery to have been the origin of all our evils; but admitting, for the sake of the argument, that it was upon reflection it will be found that the question still arises, is its utter annihilation at the present time, and in the present condition of the country and that of the negro race, the proper remedy? As well might it be contended that the utter destruction of life is the best mode of relieving long continued bodily ailment. No sensible physician would either in theory or practice advocate such a treatment, and yet in what respect do the cases differ? The immediate abolition of slavery no one will deny strikes a death blow at the very existence of the communities whose people are said to be cursed with the institution. A safer and more certain method to restore them to political health would be a resort to gradual emancipation or some other measure of a like nature. It might at least have been allowed consideration, for it should not be forgotten that the southern people themselvesare not wholly accountable for the evil of slavery. Their brethren of the North are more responsible for its introduction among them, and should therefore be the last to demand that their title to what has always been recognized as property should be destroyed merely to satisfy the inordinate cravings of fanaticism. For one I can never consent to the adoption of a measure which must utterly abrogate their former acknowledged rights and destroy their political existence, and thus deprive them of a participation in the blessings enjoyed by other portions of the country to whose birth and prosperity they have so largely contributed by their willing sacrifice of blood and treasure.

But passing over this question and conceding, if you please, for argument s sake, the position of our opponents, what justification can they possibly find for their attempt to enact laws depriving innocent offspring of lands owned by their forefathers, and thus robbing them of their lawful inheritance, to be parceled out among these liberated slaves? This is an assumption of power in direct violation of the Constitution, quite as much so as would be a law for the utter abolition of slavery. And yet we have had not even a hint of a proposition to amend that instrument so us to permit of confiscation. And why? Was it because that, unlike the slavery agitation, there was no political capital to be made from such a proposition, and because they feared that a proposition so outrageous might lead to a more careful inquiry and scrutiny into their acts by the people, and result in the raising of a whirlwind the effects of which no political organization could withstand? It would seem so, at all events.

Again, why are we not asked to amend tha Constitution so as to confer greater powers upon the Administration to justify them in their unwarrantable arbitrary arrests? Is it not because they fear the verdict of the people upon such an issue directly raised? The Constitution prohibits the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment upon actually guilty parties; and what can be said in mitigation of the incarceration of citizens in a dungeon as a punishment for a casual remark or for no conceivable offense whatever, upon mere frivolous charges preferred by irresponsible parties? The Constitution also provides for the freedom of the press. Why are we not asked to amend it so as to prohibit such freedom? "Will they dare do it? No and yet they have not hesitated to setrthe constitutional guarantee utterly at naught. Why, one of the mam planks of the platform upon which the Administration party rode into power was the assertion of the freedom of the press, and yet see how they have disregarded their promises and pledges. Have we not been made the scorn and laughing stock of the civilized world, from the fact that, with all our boasted freedom, our press is muzzled to an extent scarcely paralleled in any age or country since the art of piinting was discovered? Is it not on pain of extinction that our public journals are compelled to refrain from giving utterance to their opinions and obliged to remain silent, while stupid and stupendous lies are daily perpetrated and circulated by parties who affecting to be par excellence the friends of the Union are influenced by purposes of plundering or stock jobbing operations, or both? Has not the suspension of the two journals alluded to before, and known as the Journal of Commerce and the World, by order of the President, and placing a military guard in possession of the premises, presses, and printing materials, been of a character to alarm every freeman and justly excite his apprehension for the liberty of the press in the future' Have the American people already become so familiar with the perpetration of kindred acts that they cease to warn them of approaching danger? I hope and trust the people have not yet become so indifferent and have so tamely submitted to these attempts to trample upon or abrogate their sacred rights guarantied by the Constitution as to have suffered them to be taken away without opposition, or have deservedly lost their title to them by default. The despotic theory that" the king can do no wrong" can never be recognized by Americans nor its practice tolerated on American eoil.

If the publication of the bogus proclamation was what it is claimed to have been, a criminal transgression of law, the offending parties should have been arrested on a warrant issued by acivil magistrate and taken before him for a hearing, been allowed an opportunity to answer and if able establish their innocence and show that they were not guilty of the offenses charged against them. This privilege was denied, though it was soon discovered that they did notcommit norintend to commit any wrong, and that they were simply the victims of a base and fraudulent imposition. Had these papers been published in the interest of the Administration they might not have received such harsh treatment. The actually guilty party who had committed the act was soon discovered, arrested, and taken to that celebrated Government boarding house Fort La Fayette," where he should be kept for the good of the country and the improvement of his morals; but 1 am informed he is soon to bo liberated and will be once more at large, free to again play his pranks at any moment upon some unsuspecting victim. Like the fox he may lose his hair, but I doubt if, like the fox, he ever loses his tricks. He was an attendant at Beecher s church; a prominent member, nay, I believe the president of one of the numerous loyal leagues; and if true, as I am led to believe, that it is to these circumstances he will owe his speedy liberation, he will prove to have been much more fortunate than other and, in my opinion, much better citizens and purer patriots.

At the time of the suppression of the journals named many if not all the employes of the Independent Telegraph Company were deprived of their liberties, under circumstances, if possible, more to be regretted by the people. These men were incarcerated in a dungeon upon a mere suspicion that possibly they could have been guilty of transmitting this notorious bogus proclamation over the wires of the company in whose employ they were. Their innocence was shortly after established beyond even a shadow of a doubt, and had to be admitted by the very parties who, under color of authority, so ruthlessly deprived them of their liberties. No amends can be made for the injury done by such unauthorized assumption and exercise of arbitrary power, and it should, therefore, not be allowed to pass unnoticed, but be properly rebuked, and receive at least the merited indignation of every lover of freedom, and of all those who have any regard for the fundamental law and the observance of its mandates.

The placing of a military guard over the property of the company and depriving them of its use for the time being, is yetanotheractdone without authority and in clearviolation of the Constitution. It maynot be as deplorable in its results; but that does not justify it nevertheless. The pecuniary loss occasioned by these unlawful proceedings I admit can be restored, but nothing can be done to blot them out. I am informed that it is the intention to give the company some of the Government patronage hitherto exclusively bestowed upon then- rivals in business. But notwithstanding all this, what a sad page the recital of these wrongs will fill in the history of our country.

Let us not, for Heaven s sake, tamper with the Constitution. We have a work of more importance to perform; let us try and do it; yes, do it manfully, and not hesitate; let us see that the Constitution is respected in future; let us insist upon the proper enforcement of its provisions at all times and in all places, high or low; and let us not be deterred from inflicting condign punishment upon him who has the presumption to dare to violate or disregard it.

Let us talk no more about amending the Constitution to attempt to free the negroes. Are we not warned by the signs of the times, lest in so doing we may not only lay the foundation for enslaving the white people of this country, but of the whole American continent beyond redemption and for all time to come?

Mr. Speaker, I repeat that on no occasion when the purposes of those administering the Government have seemed to them to demand it, have they hesitated to infringe upon and disregard the Constitution. Not only by their acts, but in numberless instances by the teachings of those who are recognized as expounders and exponents of their views have they asserted tliatwheretheConstitution stood in the way ofthe carrying into effectof their policy the Constitution mustgive way. This is the doctrine daily preached by that pulpit politician, Henry Ward Beecher, and the worthies who affiliate with him in political sentimentand action. And no one will question that they are the very apostle s ofthe political faith of the partisans in power. This same Mr. Beecher, in 1863, said in Plymouth church in speaking ofthe Constitution, ii 1 know it is said that the President is not the Government. What!" he exclaimed, "asheepskin parchment a Government!" doubtless presuming the assemblage to be in unison with him in sentiment. Why, sir, this is as much a substitution of the mere will of the Administration in place ofthe written law as the most arbitrary despot in history has ever dared to exercise.

It was for no more daring assertion of kingly prerogative and usurpation of power that Charles I of England lost his head upon the scaffold. Louis XIV of France, when he arrogantly declared, "The State am the State," and acted upon that declaration, scarcely went further than this new doctrine, which boldly announces that the Constitution may be violated upon the pretext that, in the opinion of the President, it is necessary to do so to preserve the Union. Louis had the Bastile, in which by a summary process, secretly and without trial, those who dared to criticise or oppose his policy were incarcerated. The Administration have Fort La Fayette in which, for no greater offenses, American citizens have been subjected to similar treatment. History, we are told, repeats itself; and the parallel I have cited would seem to be an illustration of the truth of the saying. Let those having charge of the Government beware that the parallel is not carried still further. Louis Philippe restrained the freedom of the French press, and went so far as to attempt to prohibit the right of the citizens peacefully to assemble in public meeting, and the result was that ho was forced to fly the country, not disguised in a long military cloak and Scotch cap, it is true, but in the loose blouse and overalls of a Parisian hod carrier Let the Administration, then, I. repeat, be warned in time, for there are limits beyond which it is not safe to trench upon the rights even of a people so patient as those of the United States have shown themselves to be. Already the indignant mutterings of the people at the repeated gross violation of freedom of speech and discussion are to be heard coming up in tones that should give most significant warning that the limit of endurance has been reached Why is there this apparent hesitancy at this moment to treat the Constitution in regard to the institution of slavery as they have treated it in respect to the points to which I have referred? There was no hesitancy to violate that sacred instrument in the case of the emancipation proclamation and confiscation acts. And why this newborn delicacy and reluctance manifested in the present request to go through the form of its amendment? Is it because the old love and reverence for the Constitution once so universal among us has been resuscitated, or because the majority here repent of its many wanton violations on their part? No, sir; I can give them credit for no such reform and repentance. It is an attempt to replenish again their almost exhausted stock of political capital by creating a new issue based upon the slavery question before the people, in the hope of renewing again that agitation upon the turbulent waves of which they were swept into the power which they have so deplorably abused.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, permit me to appeal to gentlemen of the Opposition to pause and reflect. Let me remind them that the country has little to hope for the future unless the war and its speedy and successful termination be not made the primary and unceasing object of all our efforts. Let us, I beseech you, thus occupy our attention, and leave this carping about constitutional amendments and other measures of like character to be disputed about and disposed of hereafter. Is not the war still the question of all questions pressing upon our consideration' Alas! no one can deny it. Let our earnest effort then be to unite in the endeavor to secure an early and honorable termination thereof. Above all let us not be led astray by a desire for mere partisan success, and thus, through party strife, place additional barriers in the way of the consummation that our people so fervently desire. Let our aim be to restore the country to its former happy condition; but, if unsuccessful, let us at least maintain our great charter inviolate. Let us heed the lesson which history teaches us, that it is wisest always to leave well enough alone.

Mr. SHANNON obtained the floor.