January 10, 1865

The SPEAKER. The next business in order is the consideration of the. business in which the House was engaged at the adjournment yesterday, being the motion to reconsider the vote by which tlieHouseon the ]5th of last June rejected a joint resolution (S. No. 10) submitting to the Legislatures of the several States a proposition to amend the Constitution of the United States, on which the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Kasson] is entitled to the door.

Mr. KASSON. Mr. Speaker, when this question was up at the last session of Congress I had no opportunity, from certain causes then existing, to ask the attention of the House to the views which I entertain upon the only two questions which, in my judgment, are involved in its consideration. These are its constitutionality and its policy. Nor had I intended until yesterday to ask the attention of the House even to these two questions; but when the distinguished gentleman fiom the Louisville district of Kentucky [Mr* Mai lory rose in his place and called the attention of his side of the House to certain questions which, in my judgment, are outside of the main questions at issue, 1 thought it my duty, as it certainly is my pleasure, to ask the attention of the House to the propriety of such appeals. It seemed to me that with some emphasis and with somewhat of the air of leadership of his colleagues upon that side of the House, the gentleman from Kentucky demanded to know of them if there were new lights, and, with still further emphasis, if there were new" influences" brought to bear upon them since the question was considered at the last session, that should change the vote of any member who then voted against this proposition. 1 wish for myself to answer that there have been new lights and new influences brought to bear upon its consideration and that gentleman I think is entitled to the commiseration of his associates if he has been unable to recognize these lights and these influences.

Why, sir, this question was propounded to the people of this country by the convention of Union men which met at Baltimore in June of last year; they challenged the people of this entire nation to its consideration by declaring that the best interests of the country required that this amendment should beadopted. And when the convention with which that gentleman was allied met subsequently in the city of Chicago about the 1st of September, they did not dare to take up the issue thus presented by a counter statement to the Democracy of this country. They failed to meet the issue and to rally their adherents upon that basis. And I contend, sir, as a man raised and trained in the Democratic faith, that there is not one authentic doctrine of that party to which its most devoted adherent in this House should give his attention to day as preventing the free and philosophic and calm exercise of his judgment in respect to the propriety of supporting this amendment. If the Democratic party desired to pledge gentlemen upon the otherside ofthe House to opposition to it, I ask them why they did not in that convention rally the Democracy upon that basis, and tell them that it was a radical change, and that it was unconstitutional, as has now been claimed by some members upon the other side of the House. I affirm that there is no doctrine of the Democratic party that is against the proposition offered here for the action of this House today. On the contrary, I affirm that there is abundant testimony from the Democratic fathers of this country to the propriety of considering a question of this kind, and sustaining it as a matter of just statesmanship in this nation.

Mr. MALLORY. I would inquire ofmy friend from Iowa [Mr. Kasson] if he is not aware that in every amendment that has heretofore been made to the Constitution of the United States the effort and the effect has not been to increase the powers of the States and diminish the powers of the General Government.

Mr. KASSON. I will answer that question very soon in the course of my argument.

Mr. MALLORY. And 1 will also ask if those changes have not been made by the very Democratic leaders to whom he now refers as guides to gentlemen on this side of the House.

Mr. KASSON. I will answer both questions before I have done.

At present 1 go on to say that the new light and the new influence to which I refer is simply this—and I appeal to the Democrats themselves for proof of what 1 say—that it has been the law of the Democracy from the beginning of this Government to this time, that true Democracy was obedience to the will of the people when lawfully and constitutionally expressed. I say that when this question was submitted to the people of this country during the last canvass it was fully discussed. In my own district, in joint debate in everyone of the twenty three counties it was debated on the stump, and so far as 1 know it was debated in some way in every other district in this Union, and when the voice of the majority of the people of this country, as the result of this canvass, pronounced in favor of the progress of events, as indicated by this amendment, it i? a law ofthe Democracy that they should defer to the will of the people thus declared with almost the force of national law.

Mr. MALLORY. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him another question?

Mr. KASSON. Certainly.

Mr. MALLORY. I understand that the gentleman now claims that because the majority of the people of the United States indicated their approval of this change in the Constitution of the United States therefore the immense minority who opposed it should submit and consent to the change. Now, if lie undertakes to assume that the majority can change the Constitution, and that the immense vote against any such proposed change should have no influence, then 1 will give up the contest. If he makes any argument atall of the kind which I understood him to make, should he not claim that two thirds of the people of the United States sustained his candidate and platform?

Mr. KASSON. I will remark to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Mallouy] that he again fails to appreciate the old Democratic doctrine, that the will of the majority constitutionally expressed is the lawful indication of the course that should* be pursued by the Democracy. But when the proposition is not final, but is to submit the amendment thus supported by the majority to the constitutional preponderating majority of two thirds and three fourths, it is against u true Democracy to refuse that submission to the people.

Mr. MALLORY. If the gentleman will permit me, i will make another statement which he can have the benefit of in his argument, and that is that that form of amendment was voted for by a minority of the people of the United States.

Mr. KASSON. I find that my friend has fallen into another error which we have so often found prevailing with him and his friends, and that is, the recognition of the right of men who have repudiated (he Constitution and sought to ovei throw the Government to be allowed to press down and resist the action of men who acknowledge their just allegiance to it; a doctrine that is anti Democratic, unjust, and, I think, against the future as well as the present peace of this country. Aside from that his statement is unfounded in fact.

The course of our national statesmanship upon thisquestion has been somewhat remarkable. The pendulum has swung first in one direction, then by reaction in the other direction, and now it is returning to the course of itsorigmal action. The fathers of this country did consider this question, and considered it in the same spirit in which we are nowconsidenng it upon this side the House. We are told here that the change is radical; that we have no power or authority to make it; in other words, that we are proposing to introduce into the Constitution an element and doctrine bo much outside of the scope of the Constitution, as originally established, as to deserve the appellation now of a radical "and unjustifiable change. And one of tin.' gentlemen upon the other side of the House, 1 think the gentleman from Kentucky, [Mr. Mallory,] demanded at the close of his argument yesterday," If you do this thing what obligation will exist upon the States or the people to adhere to a Government thus radically changed?" To that I wish now to call the attention of the House.

And first, I ask permission to read what occturedin the Convention that framed the Constitution, and the reasons given for that action, showing that the position taken by gentlemen upon th it side of the House yesterday was in direct contravention of the spirit of the fathers who made the Constitution itself. For example, quoting from the third volumeof the Madison Papers, when the very question of the action of the Convention upon this subject *vusrcfuirod to and was under consideration, Mr. Madison declared that he" thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution that there could be property in man;" and Mr. Randolph moved that the word" servitude" bo stricken out and the word" service" inserted; and then follows the reason, as given in the Madison Papers, for the change:

"Theformer [servitude] being thought to express the condition of slaves, and tiic latter [scmtc] the obligation of free persons." it was so done.

Not only that, but this subect was wrought into the very texture of- the Constitution itself; for that Convention prohibited the importation of slaves into this country after the year named in the Constitution; that its to say, ir authorizes the prohibition of that importation after the year 1803 and that prohibition was made effectual by subsequent 1 refer to this to show that we are only treating upon one of the same class of questions which were treated by the men who made the Constitution itself; and therefore it is now within the legitimate scope of any constitutional amendment affecting this subject.

I will now ask the Clerk to read to this House the opinions entertained by Patrick Henry, as expressed in the convention of Virginia that met for the ratification of the Constitution. I ask him to read the passage I have marked to show that he opposed the adoption of the Constitution, or expressed doubts of the propriety of so doing, because it so far covered this subject, in its terms, as to justify even the positive and direct action of Congress itself upon it, without any additional authority to be derived from a future amendment of that instrument.

The Clerk read, as follows:

If you give power to the General Government to provide for the general defense, the means must be commensuiate to the end. All the means in the possession of the people inu t be given to the Government which 1$ intrusted with tiie public defense. In tlu 3 State there are two hundred and tlntly bix thousand black?., and there are many in several other Staff"; but there are few or none in the northern States; and vt t if the northern States s hall be of opinion that out numbers are numberless, they may call forth every national resource. May Congress not say that every black must fight? Did we not see a little of this last war? We were not so hard pushed as to make emancipation general but acts of Assembly p is ed that every slave who would go to the Army should be free. Another thing will contribute to bring this event about. Slavery is detested we feel it& fatal effects; we deplore it with all the pity oi humanity. Let all the u considerations at some future period pie«* with full force on the minds of Congress. Let that humanity which,] trust, will dis tingm fli America, and the necessity of national defense; let an tin e things operate on their mind*; they will se ucli that paper and see if they have power of nuiuunus ion And have they not, sir? Have they not power to provide for the general defence and welfare? May they not think that these call for the abolition of slavery?• May not they pronounce all slaves free? And will they not be warranted by that power? There is no ambiguous implication or logical deduction. The paper speaks to the point. They have the power m clear, unequivocal terms, and will clearly and certainly exercise it."

'Mr. KASSON. And in reply to objections of that kind, made in the convention of Virginia, another distinguished member of that convention, Governor Randolph, rebuked them and said:

I hope that there are none here who, considering the subject in the calm light of philosophy, will advance an objection dishonorable to Virginia, that, at the moment they are securing the i hts of their citizens, there is a spark of hope that these unfortunate men now held in bondage may, b> the operation of the Gcueial Goiet 7inient} be made free —3 Ell. Deh, p igo 598.

Such, sir, was the doctrine, at that time, of the futhei s of the country, regarding it as a consideration m favor of the Constitution then proposed for adoption that there was a possibility that under its operation, whether by laws passed under it or by amendments that might be. made in accordance with it, there was a possibility,'' a spark of hope," in the language of Governor Randolph, 44 that these unfortunate men held in bondage might be made free."

Again, sir, at the same time when the Convention that framed the Constitution was m session the Congress of the Confederation was sitting in Philadelphia; and I quote from the act known as the" oidmance of 1787," which established freedom throughout the great northwestern territory, these words, declaring its put pose: li For extending the fundamental principle of civil and i tli «ious hheity which hum the ba is whereon these lepub he.', llieu law 2 and cou uisHion are erected." Thus declaring that the very basis on which rested the ic pub lies then existing, the several States then sovereign, was the fundamental principle of civil and religious libei ty; and they desired to extend it to the northwestern territory by declaring every slave free (that was the practical effect of it) in all that vast territory. And 1 may state in this connection that by act of Congress at that time, and by its reennctment by the first constitutional Congress, slaves were emancipated in that territory. And 1 recollect well that subsequently there came from Indiana, then Territory, (and, Mr. Speaker, you will remember the historical fact,) petitions to Congress, praying for the suspension, in regard to slavery, of the operation of that ordinance reenacted under the Constitution, the object being, from the necessity for labor, to authorize the people of that Territory to hold slaves for a longer period.

Thus we find, sir, that in the very inception of the Government, by its organic laws, by its debates (and I could occupy hours in citing from them to the same effect) this very subject was considered as a legitimate subject of U legislation. And when the other gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. C ay declares that by this proposition we pio> pose to take from the people of Kentucky their property, to deprive them of that which belonged to them as property, I call his attention to the better spirit of the fathers of this country, who denied that it was property and regarded it only in the light of personal service, like that which an apprentice owes to his master, except that this continued for life and the other for a term of years. And further, in connection with this charge of robbing citizens of their property, I call attention to the fact that, so far as 1 have been able to examine, all the emancipation that has taken place in the United States of America from the beginning of its history to the present time, whether by States or by the United States, has been emancipation withoutcompensation. Letany gentleman in this House from any State in the Union where emancipation has taken place, correct my statement if I am in error, in Massachusetts there was no compensation

Mr. MALLORY. Emancipation heretofore has been more gradual, and not immediate.

Mr. KASSON. No, sir.

Mr. MALLORY. And by the States, and not by the Federal Government.

Mr. KASSON. I speak now of the principle of compensation, if it is unjustifiable, there being no express provisions of the Constitution against it, if it be unjustifiable to take what they call property without just compensation, then, sir, it applies to the action of States exactly as it does to the United States; and to gradual emancipation identically with prompt emancipation; for gradual emancipation only takes away a smaller proportion, a less amount of the property, it would be just as much a violation of principle. It is a question of degree, and not a change of principle.

Now I afKrm, Mr. Speaker, that the State of Massachusetts emancipated without compensation; that the State of New Hampshire emancipated without compensation; so also the State of Rhode Island; the State of Connecticut; the State of New York; and the State of Pennsylvania; so also the State of Missouri; so also the State of Maryland, thank God since the outbreak of this war. And done upon this principle, not that it is taking away property, but that it is dissolving a relation; in other words, declaring that this is not property nt all, but is a relation or an institution which is always subject to the operation of the legislation of the country in proper form.

Now, sir, this being so, with what consistency with the history of this country, I ask gentlemen on that side of the House, can they rise here and say that this change is" unjustifiable," unconstitutional," radical," so as even to discharge from allegiance to this Government the States and the citizens of the several States? So it was intimated yesterday by the gentleman from Kentucky, [Mr. Mallory.] There is no basis for the charge in history. There is no basis for it in logic. Our fathers did not regard this as property like that which is property by the universal laws of mankind. Why, sir, that thing which is regarded as propei ty under the Constitution of the United States and by all civilized nations we all understand. Remedies aie given in every court in every civilized nation for the recovery and protection of what is generally called property. Tlus used to be called an institution. They used to appeal to us, u Do not touch our domestic relations; do not touch our domestic institutions." But when they find that institutions and relations are the subjects of legislation, they then change the name and call it" property" and interference with their" property."

From my own State I wish to cite a very remarkable illustration of the point a very solemn statement of a citizen of Iowa, whom gentlemen on the other side will acknowledge as authority, the very gentleman who, if my memory is not in error, officiated in Iowa during the lust canvass upon the Democratic Central National Executive Committee, a gentleman who was judge in the Territory of Iowa, and whose judgments appear in the first volume of our judicial decisions. This gentleman still Adheres to Democracy in its strongest and most obnoxious form, so far as I know. I icad from the first case reported in the first volume of the reports of that Territory to show the position that was judicially taken by a gentleman holding that relation to H and to the Democi atic pai ty. it was a ease involving the right of a slave to his freedom by virtue of a territorial law of Congress, and without compensation. In answer to a part of the argument, he said:

"The law does not take away his property in ovpre*^ terms but declares if. no longer to be property at all. Of eouij e those legal remedies which can only be resorted to upon the presumption of a still >u bating owner Jnp i the ina tt r became altogether annihilated."

Now there is the judicial opinion of a strong and acknowledged Democrat that it is not taking away property, but simply changing a relation, and declaring that that relation shall no longer constitute property. Sir, it is a modern heresy, introduced mainly by those who are now the sworn and acting enemies of the United States, that a slave is property as your horse, your ox, and your ass are property. It is no doctrine of the fathers and no doctrine of the Federal courts of the country as administered in the early times* Then, sir, i think I have shown by history that we, at least, have the right to deal with this subject by amending the Constitution, provided we do it according to its own terms.

Gentlemen say that we are interfering with State rights. In this particular I call their attention to what the Constitution has already done to interfere with State rights. They tell us this is a" change" of the General Government. They call the Constitution an" agency," a "compact," a" contract," all of which is contrary to a sound judgment upon themstrumcnt itself. I take issue with that doctrine, and i appeal to those gentlemen to meet the issue, that the Constitution creates a Government within the scope of its powers as absolute, as sovereign, as complete as is the Government of any State in the Union, legitimately constituted by the people.

The Constitution reads in its opening clause, that—

£k \Ve< the people of the United States, in order to form a moil* peif. ct Union, c tabli h justice, in uie domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our po tenty do ordain and e utjlislt this Constitution for the United States of America."

Not that" we the sovereign States do make th is compact;" not that "we the independent States do agree as follows;" not that" we the people of the United States create an agency subject to the control of the States;" but that we the people of the United States, for the objects named" do ordain and establish this Constitution." Now gentlemen may be able to show me in what that differs from the organization of Use governments in the States. But I challenge them to show me one point of difference which constitutes this an agency or compact in distinction from a constitutional Government which does not apply equally to any State constitution and government in this Union.

Did not this Constitution interfere with State rights? Did it not take away from every one of those States the right to com money and regulate the value thereof; the right to establish post offices and post roads; the right of regulating their commerce with foreign countries; the right to make treaties or alliances with other States; and the light to do a hundred things which exist with every sovereign and independent State? And yet we. are continually told hcie by gentlemen on the other side that we are interfering with the right of sovereign States when the very Constitution itself takes away a large portion of the rights of sovereign States and appropriates them to the action and control of the Government of the United States of Ametica.*,

Why, sir, it even compels those States, in their cont' st with each other, to go into the courts of the United States as litigants, and qualifies the Supreme Court of the United States, now sitting in the other endof this Capitol, to pass judgment upon the respective claims of what they are pleased to Ceil the sovereign States of this Union. 1 say that hi the light of these facts it is a logical absurdity to affirm upon this floor that we are interfering with the lights of sovereign States when we simply propose to take from the scope of their action one single subject more in addition to those which were withdrawn by the original Conslituti on.

Mr. VOORHEES. I have been listening with measure, hs 1 always do, to the remarks of the gentleman from Iowa. 1 understand them to apply to something which 1 had the honor to submit yesterday. With the gentleman s permission I will preface the question I desire to ask by a brief statement. My doctrine upon the subject of State sovereignty is this: they are sovereign upon those subjects which were reserved to them by the Constitution; that the Federal Government is sovereign upon those questions which were granted to its control by the States when they formed the Union. Wherein the Federal Government is sovereign, it is beyond the interference of States, and equally the States are beyond the control of the Federal Government on all matters reserved originally by themselves to their own exclusive jurisdiction.

And now let me ask the gentleman from Iowa, is his argument to amount to a denial that the States are sovereign upon the domestic institution of slavery? If so, why is there found in the Chicago platform a plank which denies to the Federal Government the powerto touch this question in any State?

Mr. KASSON. The gentleman from Indiana is too good a logician to consider that question as one of radical importance. He knows very well from the tenor of my argument that my object is to show that we have the right to take, by amendment of the Constitution, one additional element of what otherwise would be the domestic power of the States; because we are only dealing with the same kimWbf questions that were dealt with in the formation of the Constitution which took from them other of their rights, and I was proceeding to show that in this proposition we are running in the legitimate line of a diminution of State rights, for the better promotion of "the general welfare." 1 will now read an extract from a very solemn letter signed by George Washington, unanimously adopted by the Convention which framed the Constitution, and addressed to the Congress of the Confederation then in session, in order to show in answer to the gentleman from Indiana, and to a question propounded to me a while ago by the gentleman from Kentucky, the relative importance of the Union upon the one hand, and those so called sovereign rights of the States upon the other In that letter, dated September 17, 1787, adopted unanimously by the Convention, as I beg gentlemen to remember, Washington says:

it io obviously impracticable in the Federal Government ot these States to secure all lights of independentsoveicignty to each, and yet ptovule for t lie interest and safety of all. Individuals entering into society miM give up a share ofhheity to preset ve the ie t The ma uitudcof (he saci iflci', must <leprurt as ?i l-IIou ^dwition and rh citmstance ns OH Urn nh ctt to he ohlaincJ. It is at .ill times difficult to draw wuh pieeiMon the line between tho e rights which mu t bo Mmenden d and tlm e which may be io--civcd; i and on the pio ent ocen iou t lK difficulty w is ineica ed bv a diUu ence among the -evend State* a* to then situation, extent, habits, j and particular inteie ts

In all our dehbe] atioin on tin- subject we kept steadily in our view that which appeal- to us the mcate t niteie r of every ti ue American consolidation of our Union— in which is in vol veil our prosperity, felicity, safety, perhaps our national existence."

Now, let gentlemen upon the other side of the House consider that George Washington and the Convention that framed the Constitution declared "the consolidation of the Union" to be the supreme object of every true American, and ask themselves where they stand if they oppose an amendment that has for its express and acknowledged object and effect the consolidation of the Union by t he simple act of rendering the institutions in one respect in this country accordant, that respect being the veiyone which has caused this present war and brought about the very evils that tho e framers of the Constitution declared would exist for want of a proper consolidation of this Union.*

Mr. VOORHEES. The gentleman will allow me one moment. I do not rise for the purpose of disturbing the current of his argument, and if it is at all disagreeable I will not interrupt him. Inasmuch, however, as this is a grave question, and one not often discussed on the floor of this House, I trust he will excuse me. I do not understand the authority which the gentleman quotes to conflict at all with the views which I have always entertained and have often expressed. 1 believe that the Constitution was made for tiie pu rpose of forming a union of the States. Whether the term" consolidation" is happy or not, or fairly expresses the proper idea, I shall not stop now to consider. Out 1 hold that the Constitution formed a union not to be broken at the will of any one State, if any one has ever supposed that I upheld the right of a State to secede from the Union, he has done me great injustice. I have often expressed my views on this question here and elsewhere.

But what I wish to call the attention of the gentleman from Io a to now is this, does he hold that the Constitution consolidated a Union whose Federal power embraced the right to do as they pleased with all the reserved rights of the States? If that is his view now, how does he reconcile that view with the doctrine laid down but a few short years ago by the party to which he belongs? What new powers has the Federal Government obtained over the States within the last three or four years? If new powers have accrued, whence have they been obtained and outof what causes have they arisen?

In 1856 and in 1860 the party to which the gentleman belongs laid down this doctrine:

Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance ot" power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabricdepend."

If the gentleman can square his present views with that assertion of principle, I will be happy to hear him do so; and furthermore, while he is upon that point, Ipt me call his attention to a resolution that passed this House by the votes of his political friends within thelast three years. I do not know whether the honorable gentleman was a member of the House at the time, but I take it for granted that if he had been he would have supported the resolution as did his friends. The resolution was offered by the distinguished gentleman who is now a Senator from Ohio, [Mr. Sherman.]

Mr. KASSON. I will say to the gentleman that I remember that resolution well.

Mr. VOORHEES. Let me read it.

Mr KASSON It was cited yesterday and I propose to answer that point.

Mr. VOORHEES. Let me read it for my own purpose and then will not detain the gentleman longer:

"Resolved, Th it neither the Federal Government nor the people or governments of the non s iveliolding States have the purpose ot the constitutional right to legislate upon or interfere with slavery in any State of this Union."

That resolution embraces a denial of three sources of power: it denies that the Federal Government has any such power; it denies that the people of the non siaveholding States have any such power; it denies that the governments of the non slaveholding States have any such power —altogether constituting the broadest denial upon this question that could possibly be put in the English language.

Mr. KASSON. The gentleman from Indiana [Air. VooRHEEs] again fails to do justice to his logical powers. When we declared m that resolution that we had not that right w c laid the very foundation which justifies this action to get the right, to wit, by an amendment of that Constitution which then denied it. We propose this amendment to the Constitution now in the light thrown over the country by the horrors of this war. We pi opose to amend it in order to get the right, and to furnish the opportunity to avoid the occasion of a future war, and to restore a permanent peace to this distracted country. We passed a resolution in that spirit then, when gentlemen were crying out for oiive branches instead of cannon balls and everybody was willing to tender the olive-branch in advance of and to avoid the shedding of blood.

But when war has come, notwithstanding that when the olive-branch has been rejected, when we have been met on the side of the enemy with bayonets instead ofreciprocal olive branches this country haslearncdanewlesson. Wehavelearned that that class of men in the South must be treated as well with iron as with what the gentleman s friends have been pleased to style mere paper fulminations.

So it was with the action of the convention at Chicago to which the gentleman refers. It was declared that the balance of power would be preset ved by mutual non interference It was not accepted by the South; the balance of power was not preserved by non action upon this subject, but was overthrown m the face of it, thus showing the necessity of some further action on the subject in order that the balance of power may be restored and the peace of the country perpetuated as well as reestablished.

Do not gentlemen perceive that there has been a war about this very question; that hundreds of thousands of lives have beeifclost in a war provoked by the adherents of this institution; that the question is again presented to the country with a redoubled significance and power, until you cannot go into a cottage in the most remote hamlet of the nation where, in the midst of tears for dear ones lost, they do not pray you to save their posterity from being obliged to shed blood again in a contest provoked by those who have no justice in their cause, and who have no grounds for appeal to the support of either Christianity or civilization or to any feeling of humanity in their race.

Mr. VOORHEES. Does the gentleman from Iowa hold that the powers of the Constitution have been changed or enlarged by this war? And further* whether he seeks now to amend the Constitution by virtue of itself; or whether the gentleman is at last driven to intrench himself, upon this question, in the war power? If not, if the Constitution remains unchanged, I must be permitted to respectfully suggest that the doctrine asserted by the party before the war broke out, upon the subject of constitutional power, should obtain now under an unchanged Constitution.

Mr. KASSON. if I gather the scope of the gentleman s inquiry, it certainly is unnecessary for me to answer him. If he is familiar with that Constitution, which he no doubt has read, he knows that it confers power for its amendment. If he asks me my opinion as to the war power under it, I affirm that the Constitution gives that power to an undefined extent; and that it rests with the organized representation, legislative and executive, of the people of this country, how far that power shall be exercised, according to the necessities of war, and limited not to be in conflict with other provisions of the Constitution.

And now call the attention of gentlemen upon that side and upon all sides of this House to another fact: that there me but two limitations in the Constitution of the United States upon the power to amend it. In every other respect that Constitution may be amended as fully as the constitution of any State in this Union may be amended. I refer to the fifth article, which gives the power to amend, and prescribes the mode in which the amendments shall be accomplished. It says, after prescribing that mode:

Provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year 1808 shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth tectum of ilio. first article-'

That relates to the importation of foreign persons, meaning negroes.

"and that no State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."

Upon these two points, or rather the one now remaining point, you are not permitted by the Constitution to amend it. Upon every other point within the range of conventional action, asiecognized by civilized countries, you have full power to amend the Constitution.

And there has never been a more dangerous doctrine propounded upon this floor than that which was enunciated upon the other side of this House yesterday, that we had not the power to amend the Constitution, and on the other hand that these southern rebels had the right to come back into this Union under the same Constitution identically that existed at the time they went out of the Union. That was the doctrine of the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Bliss,] who spoke, I think, on Friday. He declared, m substance, that that light existed in the rebels; and one other gentleman, I think one of the gentlemen from Kentucky, reaffirmed the doctrine, maintaining that the rebel States have the right to come back into the Union under a Constitution identically the same as that which existed when they went

Mr. MALLORY. I desire to ask the gentleman a question in relation to another matter. Will the gentleman tell me whether he believes that, by an amendment to the Constitution, we could so change our Governmentas to convert it into a monarchy, or an aristocracy, or a despotism?

Mr. KASSON. If the gentleman will ask me a practical question relating to this subject, I will answer him.

Mr MALLORY Thisisapraclicalquestion. This amendment proposes radically to change the Government.

Mr. KASSON. I do not propose to discuss here the courses of the planets or the phases of the mooy. I keep to the question asclosely as I can, and I seek to rescue it from that abyss of party politics into which my friend from Kentucky sought, yesterday, to prostrate it. i desire to call the attention of gentlemen in this House who claim to be statesmen, who claim to be patriots, and to desire permanent peace in the country, to the principles that underlie thisproposed amendment-.

And I ask again, in answer to the proposition which was propounded yesterday as to the right of the rebels, under the Constitution, to come back and find that instrument exactly as it was when they left the Union—I ask this question: Can men, by the criminal action which they themselves institute, stop the wheels of Government as propelled by the honest, loyal, adhering portion of the community? Then I ask, if that loyal portion of the community choose to amend their Constitution pending this criminal action of the rebels, how can it be maintained for a moment that they have a right to come back under the identical Constitution that existed when they went out? Yet two gentlemen on the other side took the ground yesterday that men, by rebellion and crime, may prevent us from making whatever amendment of the organic law may be necessary for the peace of the country and the perpetuity of our free institutions and free Government! No, sir; I will not offer such a premium to rebellion, nor maintain that rebels not only keep all their constitutional rights during rebellion, butactually deprive usof our rights by the act and during the continuance of rebellion.

Mr. MALLORY. I wish to ask the gentleman one more question: Will he hereafter, when this question shall have been submitted to the various Statesfor ratification, admitthat the States now m rebellion shall be counted in ascertaining the proportionate number of States ratifying the amendment?

Mr. KASSON. I am not aware, sir, that there is any proposition upon that subject before the House.

Mr. MALLORY. The question must come up in the future, and I ask the gentleman in relation to that future.

Mr. KASSON." Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof."* When the gentleman places himself right upon the Democratic principle of following the indications of the will of the majority of the people, and supports the proposition to give to the people an opportunity to give the full majority that is required, then he may propound such questions to me. At present, while he stands upon entirely differcntground, and does notcombat my premises or my logic, I deny that he has the right to raise a contingent and remote question. But I will say this: If you will give the opportunity to the people of the several States of this Union, including the rebelliousStates as they may be leclaimed from rebel authority, you will have a majority of three fourths of all the States for the amendment. Counting the free States of the Union, including Missouri among them, and the little State of Delaware, you have twentyfour States of the Union to begin with, leaving but three more to give the constitutional number required by any theory to establish this as a part of the Constitution of the United States. Do you tell me that Louisiana will not ratify this amendment, that Tennessee will not, that Arkansas will not, when the loyal men of those States have a fair opportunity to record their votes upon it? I say that my information from authentic sources is entirely different, and leads me to entertain the confident belief that the only men who have the right to vote under the Constitution, the men who are in allegiance to this Government and give the Constitution their support, will go with strong voice for this amendment; and I shallendeavor to show the reasons why if time remains to me.

Mr. COX. The gentleman will allow me one moment; I will not detain him long. I will, however, as one upon this side of the House to whom the gentleman refers, answer the question which he propounded, and that which the gentleman from Kentucky propounded to him.

Mr. KASSON. I did not refer to that gentleman, but to his colleague, [Mr. Buss.]

Mr. COX. 1 am aware of that; but the gentleman will allow me to say what I proposed to say. I hold that there exists under the Constitution the right to amend it in every particular, except the two particulars specified in that instrument. Nav, more, I carry the Democratic principle to such an extent that I maintain that the people of this country, speaking through three fourths of the States, in pursuance of the mode prescribed by the Constitution, have the right to do anything; to erect a monarchy in this country; to make the king of Dahomey, if you please, the king of this country; because all the States have ceded to three fourths of them the right to change the organic law in all particulars except two. My reason for opposing this amendment is not that I deny the power to make it, but because, in my view, it seeks to consolidate power; to absorb the powers of the States, and deprive them of their municipal liberty; because it is a step toward monarchy and despotism.

Mr. KASSON. I am glad to hear the gentleman from Ohio concede away the whole case made by his Democratic colleagues yesterday. This is no proposition to appeal to the war power. Those gentlemen who dread an appeal to the war power so much as the gentleman from Ohio might weft be alarmed if this were proposed to be done in any other way than by the action of the sovereign people, sovereign in their right to amend according to the constitutional form any of their institutions. And yet I do not understand him to say that he is willing to give the people the right to pass on the question and to say whether it is their will or not. He is not willing to trust the people.

Mr. COX. I could give the people the right to pass upon it if I did not believe

Mr. KASSON. They would do it. [Laughter.]

Mr. COX. The language which the party over there is now enjoying itself at shows no inconsistency. I said I would not oppose it if I did not believe it would tend to disturb the balance of power between the States and thus disturb our peculiar confederated system. It is because you seek to break down slavery, and because, by the exercise of a power given in the Constitution you would divert our Government from its proper course and channel, that I am opposed to it. And that is the subject for laughter on the other side of the House.

Mr. KASSON. The gentleman, instead ofadmitting my proposition well founded, passes over that point, and yet declares his apprehension in another form by the action of the people; that it would disturb the balance of power; in other words, he has no confidence in the people of this country for fear they will themselves disturb the balance of power, and therefore does not want to submit it to them.

Mr. MALLORY rose.

Mr. KASSON. In a moment. It amounts to the same thing, that the modern Democracy, as represented by my distinguished friend from Ohio, distrusts the first instincts of the people, while the old Democracy, in which I have already said I was raised, always appealed to the sober second thought of the people, and declared its confidence in the issue of a sober appeal to them on any question. But these gentlemen are unwilling to submit the question to the action of the people.

I will now hear the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. MALLORY. I ask the gentleman from Iowa whether this amendment does not refer the question for ratification, not to the people of the various States, but to the packed Legislatures elected without reference to this matter.

Mr. KASSON. Why, sir, my friend from Kentucky complains because we do not do an unconstitutional thing.

Mr. MALLORY. Not at all.

Mr. KASSON. Wedoexactly the thing which the Constitution tells us to do. 13ut in submitting it to the Legislatures, do not the people pass upon it? Do not the people elect the Legislatures? Do not the people pass upon it in the same way that they passed upon the ratification of the Constitution itself, by choosing a body of men to accept or reject this amendment? Of course they do.

Mr. MALLORY. No. "When the Statesacted on the Constitution and the ratification of that instrument, they elected conventions and Legislatures with a view to that specific object. if the gentleman will alter this resolution and provide for the calling of conventions of the States to decide whether this amendment to the Constitution shall be ratified or not, then there would be some ground for the position he occupies.

Mr. KASSON. Will the gentleman vote for the proposition thus amended?

Mr. MALLORY. No, sir.

Mr. KASSON. 1 must proceed with my argument; I appeal from old Kentucky, impressed only with the traditions of the last thirty years, adhering to the doctrines of the nullifiers denounced by Jackson, our great modern Democratic father. 1 appeal from that old Kentucky to that young giant Kentucky that is now rising in its place, and representing the purer Democracy of our fathers, that young giant, springing like Minerva full armed from the front of Jove, which took action in its Legislature on Friday last in the spirit of this amendment, and which has an eloquent exponent upon this floor, [Mr. Yeaman,] from whom we have heard once on this question. I appeal to that young Kentucky, infused with the life of the times, capable of appreciating the spirit of events, competent to understand the necessity of a modification of our institutions which is required by the times and by circumstances. And to that Kentucky I submit the argument which I render here, for it will meet me on the terms and premises and logic which I have sought humbly to submit to gentlemen on thatside of the House to day

For the present I leave the question of constitutionality; and 1 call the attention of the House to the only question, beside the constitutionality of the measure, which, in my judgment, should be considered here by legislators who desire to act for the best interests of the country; I refer to the policy of the amendment. Let me say here that it is necessary to carry into effect one clause of the Constitution of the United States which has been disobeyed in nearly every slave State of the Union for some twenty five or thirty years past. I refer to that clause of the Constitution which declares in section two of the fourth article that the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States. You cannot go into a State of the North in which you do not find refugees from southern States who have been driven from the States m the south where they had a right to live as citizens, because of the tyranny which this institution exercised over public feeling and public opinion, and even over the laws of those States.

In my own State there are numbers of men who have been driven from their farms, not for any oflense against any of the laws which usually constitute crime, but because in opinion they did not agree with those who adhere to the institution of slavery. Who does not know that we have abundant proof that numbers of men in the State of Texas, Germans who had settled there, quiet and peaceable men, have been foully murdered m cold blood because they were known to be anti-slavery in sentiment? Who does not know that innocent ladies, cultivated, intelligent, Christian women, have been driven from the cities and States of the South, not for any legal offense committed by them, but because they had dared to say something offensive to this intoiei ant spirit of slavery? Nay, more; who does not know that it has inaugurated aciuel despotism, a spirit brutal beyond comparison in the history of the world, in the treatment of soldiers of the Union taken prisoners by them since the war commenced? What other civilized nation exists in Europe, or on this continent, that would have treated prisoners of war as ours have been treated m this southern dominion? I ask gentlemen to point me to modern history, and show me where prisoners of war have ever received such neglect and brutality as our soldiers have encountered who have been made prisoners in the South.

And what is the reason of it? It is because they chaige these soldiers with being abolitionists. They appeal to that insane, mad spirit of slavery, and thus heap crime upon crime, i speak of it now in its effects. To illustrate its effects, remember it was slavery which positively refused the agents of what gentlemen are pleased to style a sovereign State in the Union a hearing in its courts. Did not Massachusetts send two distinguished gentlemen to try a cause affecting the right of South Carolina over free colored citizens of Massachusetts in the courts of South Carolina, and were they not driven ignominiously from the city of Charleston, without access to the court? Would that have been done if slavery had not existed? But worse than that! I mention one other illustration with shuddering horror, and I mention it only for the further exhibition of the truth of history. The chairman of the Military Committee mentioned to me yesterday an instance showing the effects of the institution in another direction, infinitely worse than the denial of relief according to law, and before its own tribunals.

[Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. HOLMAN. There is no objection to the gentleman from Iowa continuing his remarks.

Mr. MALLORY. I hope, as the gentleman from Iowa has been interrupted so much, and as I have had part of his time, he will be allowed to proceed.

Unanimous consent was given.

Mi. KASSON. I was about to say, Mr. Speaker, that one of the effects—and I avoid all allusion to the exercise of private authority, I only speak of the philosophy of the institution as traced in its effects on society—that one of its effects as stated to me yesterday on competent authority was thatone of the" institutions subor dinatetothe institution of slavery had been called into play against some soldiers of our Army who had been taken prisoners and had escaped. It is well known that it is a recognized business in parts of the South to keep and train blood-hounds for the recovery of fugitive slaves. I speak of it as a fact well known and not denied by anybody. My information is this, that four Union soldiers who recently escaped from one of the rebel camps were pursued by the aid of that subordinate institution and overtaken. A ring was formed about them and the blood-hounds were let in on these four soldiers, who were torn to pieces amid the jeers and shouts of the nibble that encircled them I Tell me that it is my duty to act in any way for the protection of that institution! Let gentlemen go home to their constituents if they will, and say that they voted for the perpetuation of an institution capable of effects of that kind, one which denies the constitutional rights of our citizens in the South, suppresses freedom of speech and of the press, throws types into the rivers when they do not print its will, and violates more clauses of the Constitution than were violated even by the rebels when they commenced this war, and which has, in effect, been in chronic and constant rebellion against the provisions of our national Constitution during the last twenty years. Their personal action is for their own determination.

For myself, sir, I will go to the noble, gallant people of Iowa with no such record connected with my name. I had rather stand solitary, with my name recorded for this amendment, with the hope ofjui justice twenty years hence, than to have all the honors which could be heaped upon me by any political party in opposition to this doctrine. You cannot resist the tide of modern civilization. It commenced with our Revolution and it williiow on until unforeseen obstacles shall block up its course. It was sustained by the spirit of Washington and Madison and Jefferson, who denounced this institution; it was strengthened by France, when thatgreat empire, then flushed with the liberal genius of a republic, pronounced a decree for the entire abolition of slavery throughout her then extended colonial dominions. Thence it passed to England, and, although a bitter enemy of France, and disliking everything favored by the French people, yet after twenty years of contest under the leadership of men whose names stand high—none higher the roll of English history or of fame, freedom became a fixed fact throughout all the dominions of Great Britain. Subsequently it even permeated the arbitrary despotism of Russia, and now, by a decree of the imperial Government, seven million serfs are set free and restored to the natural rights of mankind. Then came Holland and Denmark in the train of emancipation, leaving the kingdom of Spain, the# last resource upon the European continent of the institution of slavery, and not even there, I believe, tolerated on her own soil, but only in her distant colonies.

And here, gentlemen tell me that by crying peace, peace, and suppressing abolitionism, they can check the flow of this tide, and procure a permanent peace and concord iifthe Union. They must be blind to the moral and religious power which prevails in this country if they entertain that doctrine. At the time of the Revolution the three great ecclesiastical bodies of this country, the Methodist Presbyterian and Baptist uttered their condemnation of this institution of slavery; and that opposition has run through nearly all the ecclesiastical organizations of this country ever since. They think, whether right or wrong is not the question, still they believe that the Bible compels them to entertain that doctrine; and are you by your legislation or inaction able to change that opinion?

Not only that, but that great and increasing party which believes m progressive civilization, and which has moved over the world the mighty tide of which I speak, supported by the mightier power of religion, is beginning to clearly recognize that there are three great fundamental natural rights of human society which you cannot take away without striking a vital blow at the lights of white men as well as black. They are the rights of a husband to his wife—the marital relation; the right of father to his child—the parental relation; and the right of a man to the personal liberty with which he was endowed by nature and by God, and which the best judicial authorities of England have for a hundred years declared he could not alienate even by his own consent.

Take away these three great fundamental rights from any large class of human beings, and then do you cry" peace," "peace and do you expect no assault upon a system which deprives men of such a class of rights? Sir, you must palsy the tongue which would speak; you must do more, you must palsy the hand and the arm which would strike, or you will never, never, never have reliable peace in this country while that institution exists, the perpetual occasion of moral, intellectual, and physical warfare. I put it then to gentlemen upon thatside of the House, having avoided every clement of partisan debate in this discussion, whether pure reason, and sound patriotism, and just policy, do not require of them to support this amendment, and allow its submission to the people of this country. If you desire peace and harmony, you will give the people of the North and of the South an opportunity to establish harmonious relations by the expression of legitimate majorities upon this question. If you desire perpetual discord and war, then you will refuse them the opportunity, and compel the perpetuation of this institution, with bloodshed without end in the future, and disunion without end in the present.

Mr. FERNANDO WOOD. This question, Mr. Speaker, has been very thoroughly discussed, and I doubt whether it is possible for either side of the House to advance any new or original proposition with reference to it. At the last session I had the honor to submit my views to the consideration ofthe House, and to state the reason why I should vote against the adoption of this resolution to amend the Constitution. I stated then that I doubted the power, in this mode, to reach the object aimed at; and I have listened with a great deal of interest to the discussion to day particularly that part of it between the gentleman from Iowa and the gentleman from Indiana, and I have heard nothing that has m the least altered or modified the views I expressed at that time.

1 admit, with my friend from Ohio, [Mr. Cox,] that the people can alter their fundamental, organic form of government, and so can the people change entirely their Government. That is the doctrine which the southern people assert. But, sir, that is not this proposition. This is a proposition to change the form of government, a form adopted with certain theories, with certain principles, for certain objects; and I contend that while we may amend the Constitution in the mode provided by that instrument, we can amend it only to reach and cover those subjects or powers which were delegated originally to the General Government. The Federal Government was made by the States; the people collectively were never called to act upon it; and while the Constitution provides for its own amendment, so as to enable the General Government to carry out the objects originally delegated to it, still all the reserved rights are reserved to the States. If we can amend the Constitution in this respect, we can amend it so as tojfeach to the marital relations and all other matters of a domestic character.

Mr. Speaker, i do not propo e to repeat what I said at the last session upon this question. I should be glad to know that I was wrong; but having: formed those opinions after careful study, having deliberately and carefully and, as I think, without partisan bias, reached that conclusion, with all due deference to the President of the United States I am of the same opinion now.

But, sir, we are nearly a year later in the unfortunate and calamitous present history of this country than we were at the time this question was discussed at the last session. Events of moment have transpired since then, and therefore I have taken the floor for the purpose of offering for the consideration of this House a few practical remarks as to the policy of passing this resolution; as to the effect if finally adopted by the necessary number of States; and whether, even if the effect shall be to free the slaves, we shall have given to that unfortunate race any amelioration of their condition, any social or political elevation of their status, or have advantaged them in any regard whatever.

Sir, the President tells us in his annual messy go atthe commencement of this session that lie hopes we will now pass this resolution. lie refers to the action of the people at the late election, and tells us that if we fail to pass it the next Congress will, and that as the next Congress will, why, forsooth, we ought to pass it.

will, sir, that is very strange reasoning for that functionary. We all know that death is certain, and yet should we anticipate it? Because any evil that is hanging over the country orover us as individuals is inevitable, shall we forsooth meet it hurriedly and in advance? Sir, I cannot agree to the Piesident s reasoning, that because this is inevitable we should stultify ourselves, and go counter to our principles and our honest convictions in voting for a proposition which we utterly deplore and condemn. I am not sure that the President s premises are correct. The next Congress may hold a different opinion upon this question. Slavery, as it now exists, may cease altogether before the next Congress of the United States assembles. The whole condition of our country may be altered, North and South, before the assembling of the next Congress. But assume this should not be, and the next Congress does recommend this alteration of the Constitution, do we not have Legislatures elected between now and that time? Will not the people be called upon then to act for the first time on this question? Will not Legislatures be voted for and elected on this question? Because, sir, although, as stated by the gentleman from Iowa, this was an issue of the presidential election, according to the Baltimore platform, it was no issue in the elections for members of the Legislatures; anri before the Legislatures can be called upon to act new questions may intervene for their consideration and new reasons why they should not accede may prevent their doing so.

But, sir, we will assume that Congress passes this resolution; we will assume that the Legislatures of the States carryoul the recommendation of Con ivs eiijtl agree to this amendment; what then? Will any man contend that it will free one slave? Did the President s emancipation proclamation free one siuye? Was it not, in his own expressive language, u like the Pope s bull against the comet?" This also would be a mere brulum f tilmen so far as the States in rebellion are concerned. If they continue in rebellion as they are now no action of this Congress can affect the status of slavery within these States. They disregard the action of this Congress; they will disregard any action that we may take in an amendment of the Constitution. In those States slavery will continue, except in the triumphant path ot our armies. Therefore the practical effect of this amendment will really be nothing. Withoutwe hold their territory by military power it will free no slaves; where our armies march, where their tread is felt, there slavery ceases; but it ceases only so long as our armies occupy slave territory; and when you withdraw that, slavery will again exist if the confederate power so wills it.

But I go further, because I desire upon this occasion to discuss this question freely and frankly. And what I say 1 say for myself, individually. I know the popular error is that it is politic for men to go for the abolition of slavery. I know the politicians of the North, looking for political preferment and the success of partisan power, run with this popular cuirentof the day. And the man is looked upon as a fool who is honest and frankly and boldly expresses his convictions to the contrary. But whether it be right or wrong, politic or impolitic, so far as I am concerned, I will, as I have always done m this House, and since the commencement of my public life, frankly and freely express my honest sentiments.

Now, sir, we will assume that by an amendment to the Constitution you abolish slavery: what then? Why have you abolished it? The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Kasson] has to day attempted to tell you of some of the evils which surround this institution. He calls it a social evil; others call it a political evil. All the evil acts bf the rebels are attributed to the fact that slavery exists there. And it is assumed that this rebellion never would have existed, that it could not have been begun, that it could not be prosecuted or sustained, except that slavery existed Within those States.

1 will not stop to answer these fallacies. Our revolutionary fathers went into a* rebellion and were successful. The institution of slavery was not any hinderance to their success. When they threw down tlx* gauntlet to their masters upon the other side of the Atlantic the colonies all held slaves, and yet they prosecuted a seven years' war successfully, during which we lost all our large cities. They all held slaves, yet no one among our enemies in England declared slavery as among the evils of our rebellion, or that in consequence of itsexistence we were prosecuting a bad cause for a wicked and bad purpose.

Well, h sir, we will assume that we have abolished slavery. What then? Thegentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Mali cry] asked you yesterday what do you propose to do with these people when you have freed them? Depoitthem? As the gentleman told you, it would add 4 000 000 000 to your debt, but that, in his own expressive language, would not deter gentlemen upon the other side of the House. The scheme of colonization has been abandoned; that scheme had for its supporters such men as Henry Clay and Daniel Webster. Our new lights have gone against that. They desire to keep these negroes here for home consumption. First, to use them as instruments by which to obtain political power. Secondly, to retain the power thus obtained. Thirdly, to gratify vengeance against the slaveholder. Fourthly, as an excuse for continuing the war, and thus to continue the army of Government officials, and finally, if possible, to elevate the negro to the condition of the white man and give him suffrage, and by that means to create a power which will forever rule and control this country.

Sir, thegentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Mallory] thus presented a question which must be considered and decided. Wendell Phillips, in New York recently, more fully developed the design. He boldly announces the doctrine. He sustained it, assei ting that a crossing of the white and black races would create the most superior race that has yet existed. And in reply to an inquiry, the distinguished gentleman to whom I refer boldly admitted that the object was to make the highest and most glorious specimen of human naturethatthe world has overseen. Mr. Speaker, we may amend the Constitution; we may by superior military force overrun and conquer the South; we may lay waste their lands and destroy their property; we may free their slaves. But there is one thing we cannot do: we cannot violate with impunity or alter the laws of God.

The Almighty lias fixed the distinction of the races; the Almighty has made the black man inferior, and, sir, by no legislation, by no partisan success, by no revolution, by no military power, can you wipe outthisdistinction. You may make the black man free, but when you have done that what have you done? Have you elevated his condition? Have you advantaged him physically, socially, morally, or intellectually? I asserted here at the last session, 1 now repeat the assertion, that the condition of domestic servitude as existing in the southern States is the highest condition of which the African race is capable, and when compared with their original condition on the continent from which they came is superior in all the elements of civilization, philanthropy and humanity. Sir, look at the African in his native condition, where he is supposed to be not only free, but "monarch of all he surveys." I will ask the Clerk to read an extract from the volume of Captain Carnot, published by the Appletons, in 1854, describing what he saw in Africa, and the condition of the negro in his native wilds.

The Clerk read, as follows:

In my wandciitigs m African forests, I have often seen the tiger pounce upon its prey, and with instinctive thirst satiate its appetite lor blood, and abandon the diained corpse; but these African nesresses were neither as decent noras meieifulasthe beast of the wilderness. Theirmahgnaut pleasure seemed to consist in ihe invention of tortmes that would agonize, but not slay. There was, a devilish spell in the tragic scene that fascinated my eyes to the spot. A slow, lingeung, toimenting mutilation was practiced on the living as well as on the dead; and, in every instance, the brutality of the women exceeded that of the men. 1 cannot picture the hellish joy with which they passed from body to body, digging out eyes, wrenching off lips, tearing the ears, and slicing the flesh from the qiuveung bones; while the queen of the haipies crept amid the butchery, gathering the brains from each several skull as a bonne louche for the approaching feast!

"After the last victim yielded his life, it dul not require long to kindle a fire produce the requisite utensils, and till ihe air with the odor ot hwnonjUsh. Yet, before the various masses wcie half broiled, every mouth was tearing the daintv morsels with shouts of joy, denoting the combined satisfaction of revenge and appetite! In the. midst of this appalling scene I heard a ft es h cry of exultation, as a pole was, borne into the apartment, on which was impaled the living body of the conquered chieftain s wife. A hole was quickly dug, the stave planted, and faggots supplied; but before a fne could he kindled the wretched woman was dead, so that the hatbanans were defeated m then licll h scheme of burning her akve.

do not know how long these bintahties lasted, for I remember very little after this lastaticmpt, except that the bushmen packed in plantain leaves whatever flesh was left from the orgie, to be conveyed to their friends in the forest. This was the first time it had been my lot to behold the most savage development of African nature under the stimulus of war. The butchery made me sick, dizzy, paralyzed. I sank on the earth benumbed with stupor; nor was J aroused till nightfall, whenniv Kioomen boieme to the conqueior s town and negotiated ouneilemptiou for the value ot twenty slaves."

Mr. FERNANDO WOOD. Mr. Speaker, 1 presume it will not be contended that the condition of the native African is, in any teganl, equal to that of the American slave. Sir, the Afi icans live in their native wilds as slaves. The Africans are sold into slavery by themselves. I contend that their condition m this country is in every regard improved. From barbarians they become civilized Christians; from slaves they become free*- men. Admitting all the sins with which slavery is charged, it cannot be denied that it has been an instrument in the hands of God by which to confer a benefit upon that unfortunate race.

Now, sir, I contend that, if we desire to be philanthropic—if we desire to confer a benefit upon that people—let us afford every amelioration of their condition that we can under the law; but, sir, let us not forget that, evil though slavery be, there is yet a greater evil for this unfortunate country, and that is its destruction, the disunion, the consummation of the rum now before us.

The gentleman from Indiana [.Mr. Vooriiees] said yesterday we may be anticipated in our beneficent desires—that, in his opinion, the confederates themselves are preparing to abolish slavery. I know that it has recently been stated in the South that, rather than yield to the North, they would make terms with England and France, on the condition of the recognition of their independence, with the abolition of slavery to follow as a consequence. Sir, that may be; but in my judgment, it will not be. Neither England nor France will interfere in this question upon conditions of that kind; nor do I believe that the confederate government would accept the recognition of their independence by any European Power, if based upon the abolition of slavery without the consent of the States and the people thereof.

Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that at this session of Congress there would exist a condition of public affairs that would bring about certain peace and Union; that these measures of aggression against the southern States would no longer have necessity or palliation. I had hoped that this Government would entertain propositions which have been made for a cessation of hostilities and the restoration of this Union upon the basis of the existing Constitution.

But, sir, I have been disappointed. There is no disposition to heal this quarrel at all. There is no disposition on thepartof the party tn power to restore the Union upon the basis of the old order of things.

1 can only say further, Mr. Speaker, that I shall vote against this resolution. I shall vote against it because it is not within the power of Congress to pass it. I shall vote against it because it is unwise, impolitic at this time, if yve could pass it legally. I shall vote against it because it is another step toward the eternal separation of the two sections. 1 shall vote against it because it would be no advantage to the negro if successful. I shall vote against it because it is an improper intermeddling with the domestic affairs of others. I shall vote against it because I want to remove every obstacle to the peaceful solution of this great question; I want to alleviate the condition of the South as well as the North; I want to discontinue these controversies and struggles now pending between men who but yesterday were fellow-citizens of the same great country, with the same constitutional rights and privileges. 1 shall vote against it because I would leave to every State and every political community the entire control of their own domestic affairs. I shall vote against it because I want to preserve the essence of our constitutional liberties.

I want to continue this as a Republic. I want to disseminate power from this central point instead of concentrating it here. I want to preserve the limitations of the Constitution and of the Government, as originally constructed, in theory as well as in letter and spirit, that we shall not interfere with the relation of master and slave any more than between husband and wife.

1 want to allay this excitement. I do not believe slavery has had anything to do with it. I know that at the North slavery is obnoxious to the people. I know that the sentiment there is against the existence of slavery upon the continent of America. But there are evilsatthe North which I should like to see exterminated. There are evils every where, amongevery people inevery part of the woiltl and before we assume the right to do away with theewlsof our neighbors we ought to do that which is right ourselves.

We are in a war, a terrible civil conflict. Those who believe that it is near its termination are m error, because after you have abolished the armies of the rebels there is power of resistance left among the people inhabiting that vast territory which will make it necessary to have a standing army upon every square mile to retain it. You will have not only to conquer, but keep conquered. It is not only necessary to conquer their armies, to deprive them of the power of resistance, but, in order to preserve the essence of our Government, you must conquer their hearts. You must get their assent or you must hold them in subjugation, and when you do that we will have ceased to have a republican form of government.

1 want to restore this Union. Under no circumstances 1 repeat, would I consent to disunion. But, sir, to restore the Union you must accompany the Army with the olive-branch. You must learn from General Sherman, who has done more to conquer the people of Georgia by kindness than ten thousand triumphant armies marching through that State could do. It is only by conciliation and kindness that we can conquer the rebels. Reverse the picture: suppose we were in rebellion against them, how long would we resist an attempt to subjugate us and control our domestic relations? They are as brave a people, as generous a people, and as noble a people as ourselves, and as such it is wisdom to treat them. The Republican position for forcible abolition is illogical, because when their slaves are freed by this mode you have enslaved the master. One follows as the consequence of the other. I say you must hold them in bondage before you can accomplish your purpose in this way. What is the distinction? a distinction withoutadifference. I should be loth to say here that forcible emancipation is the result of wickedness alone, but I will say it is a combination of wickedness and folly. We want the Union; we want these States back again; we want to see these men represented upon this floor; we want them to obey the laws and the Constitution; admitting they have committed a wicked folly in attempting to rebel.

To err is human: to forgive, divine and it is only, in my judgment, by conciliation, by affording them every guaianteeof the Constitution andevery privilege under the Constitution, that we can bring that people back again with us to live under one common Government, recognizing one common Constitution, one common head, and one common flag.

Mr. ELDRIDGE. I have not designed to make a speech upon this resolution, and 1 do not expect to do so now. All I shall say will be little more, perhaps, than a statement of some of the reasons why I cannot support this resolution.

The Government of the United States is one of limited and defined powers, it possesses the powers, and only the powers, granted to it through the Federal Constitution. All other governmental powers, all the powers not enumerated, are reserved to the States or the people thereof. I have not been satisfied, I am not convinced by any of the arguments made upon this question, that the power has been eonfei led upon the General Government, or that it can be by the proposed amendment, to control, regulate, or interfere with the internal and domestic affairs of the States. Icannot believe that the framers of our Constitution intended to or did place a minority of one fourth of the States of this Union in a position to be stripped of all their rights of property at the pleasure of the other three fourths. The power of amendment as conferred through the Constitution can, as it seems to me, extend only to matters in which the States have a common interest. It is one of the reserved lights of the States under their own State constitutions to regulate, control, and manage their local and peculiar interests in their own way.

This, it seems to nie, was so understood by the party now urging the passage of the resolution under consideration. At the tune of Mr. Lincoln s nomination the convention nominating him unanimously, I believe, adopted this resolution:

iLCsoZi ccf riiat the maintenance Inviolate of the rights of the especially the light of each fcjtato lo order and control it* own domestic in uuinon according to its own judgment exclusively, is et ei tial to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political labile depend."

The lights of the States and each State to control its domestic institutions is essential to the balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend. Would not this amendment destroy that balance of power? Do not the endurance and perfection of the Republic depend as much upon the preservation of that balance of power now as it did when at his inauguration Mr. .Lincoln 44 reiterated" the sentiments of that resolution, and claimed that it was a law for himself and his party?

But, sir, I could not myself at this time vote for this resolution if I did not doubt the power to amend the Constitution in the particular proposed. I do not" deem it necessary or wise in an hour like this to change so essentially and radically our Constitution ot government. However gentlemen may entertain sentiments of revenge toward voluntary rebels, it is not now pretended by any that all of the people of the rebellious States are guilty of lebclhon. It isnnjust and cruel to the innocent and true men in those States. It is taking advantage of a state of things whten neither they nor we can prevent to overthrow without the consent or cooperation of those to be affected by it most, one of tin >r constitutional and cherished institutions. it is vei ifying one of the first and most powerful at arguments for secession, that the m ituein States were only waiting for the power and opportunity to destroy all their rights of property and person. Sir, it will furnish the rebel leaders another argument by which to win the doubting and to arouse the lukewarm; it will aid them in raising other armies to fight against the Union; it will enable them to prolong this bloody and terrible war by embittering and intensifying the hatred of these people against the abolitiomzed North; it will destroy the confidence of the Union men in those States in the good fa h and candor of those who pledged them that the only purpose and desire of the party in power was to restore the Union and reestablish the supremacy of the Constitution of our fathers; it will demand the blood of thousands mj r« of the young men of this country and pile upon ourselves and our children a still weightier burden of debt and taxation. Finally, it will, in my judgment, if that be possible, putin greater danger the ultimate restoration of peace and the Union, and weaken, if it does not destroy, all faith in the safety arid stability of republican constitutional government.

Sir, I have no sympathy with the institution of slavery, powerful as it nwiy have been in the past; between Jeff. Dayis struggling to save his neck and Mr. Lincoln to build his empire, it seems to be doomed. At all events, the vast Army and Navy of the United States are pledged by their Commander in Chief to its overthrow. Every day the conflict of war is trenching in upon its dominion, and if it were to fall m a legitimate struggle to put down rebellion and restore the Union, I shall not be one of its mourners. 1 have not lost my revcrencefor the Constitution, i remember it still as the handiwork of Washington and his compatriots. I cannot forget the solemn awe and earnest solicitude with which they approached, considered, and perfected that immortal monument of human wisdom. I cannot forbear to warn this House that the spirit and temper which pervaded that august body should fill the minds and hearts of those who attempt or dare to remodel it. Whenever that sacred instrument must be altered, let it he done in the spirit of kindness and in fraternal love to every portion of our country and toward all the people who are to live underit. Let peace once more come to this bleeding, mourning country, and then with the love that animated thegreat heart of Washington invite all who can be forgiven the part they have taken in this most unfortunate struggle to join in amending, if necessary, the law which all must reverence and love who can endure to live under it. But I conjure you to let the wail of the dead and dying pass, let the smoke of battle clear away, let peace and the Union be restored, let reason again assume her dominion before another revolution shall be inaugurated. Tear not the work of our fathers asunder in passion, stain not the charter of our Union and liberties, framed by them, with their children s hands reeking with their children s blood.

Mr. KING. Mr. Speaker, in contemplating the rise, the prog iess and rapid development of the grandest system of government ever yet devised, 1 am led to reflect upon its present condition and if possible, to raise myself for a moment above the raging elements now threatening its existence, and to see if there is anything in the future which can be done, and which has not been done, to allay these elements of strife, and once more restore to remvi oratcd life the Union of these States.

FormypartI aver, as I haveeveraverred that if anything has been left undone which might now be done, which shall restore to us the unity of power, the blessings of peace, and the glorious promises of future we once enjoyed, then that needful thing lam prepared now to do.

In considering the subject now before the Mouse, 1 recognize in it the fruition of the disturbances of the last thirty years. By these amendments the promised fruits of the abolition of slavery are sought to he realized. If the union of the States is to be maintained thereby; if thereby peace and prosperity are to be restored to the land of Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Jackson; if sectional animosities are to be allayed; if thereby treason is to be foiled or punished; if the cause of human progress is to b a promoted; if, in a word, all the best interests of our common country are to be promoted by these amendments, I am prepared now, as I have eye? been prepared, to make any and every sacrifice, personal to myself, which shall accomplish objects so great and desirable. I do so the more readily because 1 recognize in the manner of presenting these amendments one of the modes pointed out by the Constitution for submitting to the States, or rather the people of the States, propositions for its amendment.

lam not unmindful, Mr. Speaker, that for many years there have been those in the land who were dissatisfied with the Union because its Constitution contained the provisions and compromises by which slavery and its safety were secured from violent or political assault. 1 have never otherwise han thought that this class of persons contributed in no small degree to the breeding of those successive and increasing irritations upon the slavery question, which were finally seized upon by the southern rebel leaders as sufficient pretext for civil war, and which they have so powerfully used as the incitement for consolidating and wielding the southern mind in four years of gigantic "war against the Government of their fathers.

But, Mr. Speaker, I, the Representative of a slaveholding constituency, aver now, as I have averred, when a prisoner in the rebel guard house and as I have, amid all the scenes of woe and desolation, that rebellious war has wrought in my district and in my State, that the evils and dangers which were complained of were not so grievous or threatening, nor could they be, as to justify a resort to armed rebellion. 1 had ever been of the firm conviction that, prior to this internecine war, there was no effective power which could have successfully arrayed itself against the constitutional rights of each and every part of our common country. And in reference to the disturbing causes which brought on the war, and superinduced the necessity for these amendments, )f the South had planted herself upon her constitutional rights, and stood shoulder to shoulder with the men of the North disposed to regard them, then there could have been no cause for the one nor necessity for th^ other.